Ms J Delouche Sea View Cottage Cliff Road Margrave-on-Sea MUDHOLE ML20 7AX 15 October 2015

Transcription

1 Hazy Beacon District Council Chief Executive s Department Town Hall St Nicholas Street Mudhole ML16 3BY Ms J Delouche Sea View Cottage Cliff Road Margrave-on-Sea MUDHOLE ML20 7AX 15 October 2015 Dear Mr Wye and Ms Delouche Your complaint against Hazy Beacon District Council I have now finished investigating your complaint. I have decided the Council has been at fault. We did not consider the planning application properly, we failed to enforce the planning conditions as we should have done, and we failed to respond properly to your complaints. I am sorry for the effect this has had on you. I will go on to explain how I investigated your complaint and the reasons for my conclusions. However, first I will explain what will happen next. Next steps I cannot predict what would have happened if the Council had properly considered the planning application. Clearly Tourism and Leisure Services wanted to be able to use the overflow during peak periods and school holidays, but this is not what the planning permission says. We need to clarify this urgently. Landscaping Officers have told me the landscaping and planting scheme will happen in the early spring. This will remove any trees, hedges or mounds which outline the overflow site. As this will mitigate the impact of the development there are no grounds for referral to the Secretary of State. The issues about internal liaison and accountability will be addressed by senior officers who will make all staff aware of the terms of the planning permission and the need to enforce it. We will write to you in the next two months to tell you in more detail about the changes we make to avoid a recurrence of the problems in this case. We will pay you both compensation of X each in recognition of the frustration and aggravation you were caused and the avoidable time, trouble and expense to which you were put. Please let me know if you do not receive the cheque within the next two weeks. 1

2 My investigation As I explained in my last letter, Ms Campbell, the Chief Executive, asked me to investigate your complaint under Stage 3 of the Council's complaints procedure. Since then I have: read the Planning Services files about the application to extend Folly Head Caravan and Camping site considered the relevant sections of the Local Plan researched some of the relevant legal background interviewed officers involved, and discussed my findings with the Chief Executive. Background In recent years, due to the increasing popularity of Folly Head Caravan and Camping Site, the Council has allowed visitors to pitch caravans and tents beyond the site into the country park. This has led to many complaints from local residents who felt visitors were ruining the country park and heritage coast. Tourism and Leisure Services planned to extend the site so any extra visitors would need to pitch in a specified area next to the original site. Your complaints are about the way the Council dealt with this proposal and the way the planning consent was implemented. The planning application 1. The Council must decide planning applications in accordance with its local development plan policies unless it has valid reasons not to. Several local planning policies restrict development on sites such as this which are outside defined development areas. I have included relevant policies as an appendix to this letter. 2. You made several complaints about the way in which the council considered the application. You told me the Council had not advertised the application properly and when it put up site notices they were almost identical to old notices about car parking prices. The requirement in this case was for the Council to erect a site notice and place an advertisement in a local newspaper. I have seen enough evidence to show the Council met both these requirements. 3. You complained the report to the Planning and Regulatory Committee did not address fully all the relevant planning policies and in fact only mentioned policy L6. I discussed this with Mr Fowler, the Area Planning Officer. His view was that policy L6 was the relevant policy, and there was little purpose in referring to other policies. However, I agree with you on this point. A planning report should set out the full picture and in my view the policies I have referred to in the appendix were all relevant and should have been mentioned. Officers should also have told Councillors the site was in the 2

3 defined coastal zone and thus contrary to policy L6. Arguably the application was also contrary to policy E2. 4. In addition, I note the Council was still waiting for responses from some consultees. It is not clear from the paperwork whether the Council received these before it made its decision. My understanding is that it did not, and so the Council approved the application before all consultees had responded. 5. You also consider the Council should not have approved the extension to the site because it is contrary to local policies. The Council's view was the conditions imposed on the permission brought it within the limits of policy L6. However, that policy states the Council will not usually allow extensions to sites where they are in the defined coastal zone. This site is within that zone and so extending the site is contrary to policy. 6. Councils may approve applications which are contrary to local policy as long as there are good planning reasons for doing so. But they must keep to the correct process and this did not happen. 7. You complain the Council should have referred the application to the Secretary of State. Government guidance says councils should refer applications which are in the Green Belt if they include buildings with floor space of more than 1,000 square metres or might have a significant impact on the openness of the area. In this case, no buildings were planned and the size of the site did not warrant referral to the Secretary of State. The impact of the development, however, was less clear. The planning application contained no information about the mounds to be erected. Therefore, the Council s officers could not properly assess how the application might affect the Green Belt. Enforcement 8. You complained the Council allowed the contractors to carry out work on site before it granted planning permission in December. The files confirm that some work started in November. The views of officers in Tourism and Leisure Services were that these were minor works for levelling and drainage only. However, that is missing the point. 9. The Council was clearly at fault here. Works should not have started until the Council had granted permission. However, the file shows the planning department took action at that point. On 29 November last year Mrs Anderson, the Head of Planning wrote to the Head of Tourism and Leisure Services and work then stopped until the Council had granted planning approval. 10. The Council attached some planning conditions to the planning permission. You complain the Council - as owners of the site - breached several of these conditions and then its planning department took little or no action to address this. 11. The Council erected a chestnut-paling fence around the extension site contrary to condition 7 which stated the site should not be separated from the rest of the country park. Officers told me the fence was temporary, but my investigation has shown that it was not removed until the middle of June - six months later. 3

4 12. You also complained the Council did not comply with condition 1 which stated the applicant must submit a landscaping design for approval before work began. I confirm this condition was not complied with. However, I should make it clear that the Council is not required to consult locally on the landscaping plan. It is an internal matter for the Council. 13. You complain there were several breaches of the condition limiting the use of the extended site to bank holidays and the main summer school holidays. On several occasions caravans and tents remained on the extension site beyond the appointed times. The Council accepted this was the case, but did not consider it practical or reasonable to remove people from the site if they were only going to be staying a few more days. I disagree. The Council imposed the condition for a good reason. The Council should have made it clear in their publicity material and on the site that periods of use for the overflow site were limited. 14. As well as the overflow site being used outside the appointed times, you also complained the site was used for caravans, again contrary to the conditions. The Council accepts this happened but considers it was reasonable in the circumstances, especially if people arrived over a fine weekend without a booking. Tourism and Leisure Services clearly did not wish to turn away any visitors. The Enforcement Officer told me that she thought it was the planning officers who would take action on any alleged breaches. However, Mr Fowler said that once the Council had granted planning permission, his department passes the file to the enforcement section to deal with any alleged breaches of the planning permission. 15. My conclusion on this part of your complaint is that conditions of the planning approval were breached and the Council failed to take action on your complaints. There was not enough communication between officers and between departments to ensure that everyone was aware of their responsibilities. No one briefed Mr Tower, the Site Manager, on the conditions. There was not enough clarity between the planning and enforcement officers on who was responsible for responding to complaints of breaches of conditions. Your complaint to the council 16. You are unhappy with the way the Council dealt with your complaints about these issues. 17. You raised these issues on several occasions, first with the officers themselves, then through your local councillor. However, on each occasion you received no response. The Council did not return your telephone calls and did not take action. The file shows that you contacted Mr Fowler, Mr Kingsland, Ms Kendrick and your Councillor on several occasions between late November and the middle of May to bring to their attention the various planning breaches. 18. I have investigated these points and the files show you are correct. I can find no evidence that anyone returned your telephone calls, wrote to you or took action to investigate your complaints. 4

5 19. By late June you had become so exasperated that you wrote to the Chief Executive. Under the complaints procedure the Chief Executive passed your letters to the respective Heads of Department to reply. Mrs Anderson wrote to you on 16 August. I agree that her letter did not address the issues about which you complained. Mr Moorcock wrote to you on 7 September. Again, his letter did not address the issues raised, and simply defended the Council's position. Nobody replied to Mr Wye's complaint letter of 26 July. 20. You were not satisfied with these responses, especially as the breaches were continuing because caravans and tents continued to use the overflow site outside the appointed times. You wrote again to Ms Campbell and at the same time you contacted your MP in the hope that he would be able to make some headway. Conclusion 21. There were errors in the way the Council processed the planning application and it failed properly to consider a referral to the Secretary of State. The Council did impose conditions and limits on operating the caravan and camping site. But it did not do enough to ensure the relevant members of staff were aware of the conditions and understood what the Council required to ensure compliance. When those conditions and restrictions were breached the Council did not take satisfactory action to try to prevent further breaches. The Council, as the local planning authority, should set a good example to all developers in the area when dealing with its own applications and developments. 22. In addition, the Council failed to respond properly to your complaints and did not comply with its complaints procedure. Once again I apologise for the Council s failings in this case and for the effect this had on you. If you are not happy with the outcome of my investigation you may refer your complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. Their contact details are in the enclosed leaflet. Please contact me if you would like further explanation of any parts of this letter or if you have any more queries. Yours sincerely Corporate Complaints Officer on behalf of the Chief Executive Enc. How to complain leaflet 5

6 Appendix: relevant local planning policies Policy E1 protects the open countryside Development will only be permitted in specific circumstances, namely a) where residential development is essential to the needs of agriculture or forestry and b) development which is located to avoid or minimise the loss of prime agricultural land, or for which an open countryside location is essential and there is no suitable alternative. Where development is permitted it must be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Policy E2 relates to the (defined) coastal zone There appeared to be some confusion about whether the caravan and camping site came within the coastal zone. Following my discussion with Mr Fowler I can confirm that it does. Development within the defined coastal zone is strictly limited to that for which a coastal location is essential and where it will enhance the open, expansive character of the coastal landscape. Where new development is permitted, mitigation measures are required to redress any potential harm to the landscape. Development of existing sites will be permitted where it will result in a significant improvement in the positioning and overall appearance of the development. Policy L6 relates to caravan site provision New sites will not be permitted. Extensions or alterations to existing sites will only be permitted where: a) there is no increase in the total number of pitches on the site, b) there is significant visual improvement to the locality through better landscaping, c) land within the site is being used as efficiently and practically as possible, d) nearby settlements remain distinctly separate from the expanded sites, e) there is no take-up of best and most versatile agricultural land, and f) the site is not within the defined coastal zone. Policy L7 relates to development within caravan sites New development within existing sites will be permitted where among other things, it will not detract from the appearance of the surrounding landscape or make the site more prominent within the landscape, landscaping is used to minimise the visual impact of the development from outside the site, it is ancillary to the primary function of the site, and it does not detract from the amenities of nearby residents. 6