Overview
In 1995 the complainant (Mr C) obtained planning permission to build a new house on his land. Planning permission was granted subject to the condition that the existing property on the land (a croft house), would revert to use as a byre, with no use as a dwelling taking place after construction of the new house was completed. Mr C says that as a result of this condition he carried out work to convert the croft house to a byre. Thereafter, in October 2004 Mr C applied for planning permission to convert the byre back to a dwelling house. Permission was refused. He applied again in June 2005 when outline planning consent was granted, subject to conditions including significant access improvements. Mr C considered the planning conditions to be onerous, therefore, he decided to sell the building with outline planning consent to upgrade to a dwelling. He considered that the requirement to meet the planning conditions was reflected in the sale price.
When the new owners moved into and commenced work on the property, it became obvious to Mr C that they were not complying with the planning conditions as set in June 2005. Mr C contacted the Council regarding this, however, he was advised that the works he had previously carried out to convert the former croft house to a byre were not sufficient for the Council as planning authority to accept that the use of the building as a house had ceased. Mr C was also advised that under the Building Regulations the building was assessed as being a house, and had never been converted to byre status. Therefore, the new owners were not required to meet the planning conditions set in the outline planning permission of June 2005. In July 2008 Mr C formally complained to the Council that the house had been occupied without compliance with the 2005 conditions, however, at the conclusion of the Council's investigation he remained unhappy with the outcome. In April 2009, he asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matter.
Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council's handling of the planning situation, in relation to the building adjacent to Mr C's property, was inadequate (upheld).
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
- (i) consider how best to meet the requirements of the planning conditions set in June 2005 where the need remains; and
- (ii) apologise to Mr C for the inadequate manner in which the planning considerations were handled.