KRA Complained about the of parking provision for Liberty Rise, Constables Way, Hertford, HERTS and the following is a report of how this was conducted
As many of you will already know, the Kingsmead Residents’ Association (KRA) has spent many months trying to discover how and why 13 parking spaces mysteriously vanished from Liberty Rise in the 14 months between planning approval on 5 February 2014 and 29 April 2015, when the Planning Officer discharged the relevant condition.
Although there was already an openly acknowledged parking shortfall when approval was granted (i.e. only 183 spaces for 175 flats and their visitors) by the time the development was completed, the actual number of parking spaces had fallen by 7%, resulting in 175 flats having just 150 spaces and a further 20 spaces being designated as (paid) visitor parking.
KRA discovered this discrepancy in December 2018 during its own enquiries, which followed the unsuccessful nine-month ‘Liberty Rise review’ undertaken by Councillors and the Head of Planning at East Herts District Council (EHDC).
Despite repeated and direct queries to Councillors and the Head of Planning, KRA was left without any satisfactory answers. We also expressed our additional concerns regarding:
The Housing Association’s decision not to provide any parking provision for their tenants. These spaces were instead bought by private flat owners.
The removal of ‘protected’ mature trees by the developer and the failure to provide an equal number of semi-mature trees, as instructed by EHDC Planning Enforcement.
The s.106 agreement (totalling £70,673) which was intended for the mitigation of any highway issues resulting from the acknowledged parking shortfall.
After numerous emails and discussions, including a Freedom of Information request and a formal complaint, KRA finally reported the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). Despite understandable delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the initial response from the LGO was hopeful, in that it was decided there were sufficient grounds to allocate the case to an Investigator for further action.
Unfortunately, the outcome of the LGO Investigator’s deliberations did not uphold KRA’s complaint against EHDC Planning Department, and although it was acknowledged that there had been breaches of planning conditions, in relation to both the social housing parking provision being sold off and the removal of protected trees, the Ombudsman supported the council’s decision, commenting “…that enforcement action was not justified because it could not demonstrate sufficient harm that should be remedied.”
While we have no choice other than accept the council’s decision we do not agree with it.
We contend that the criteria for ‘sufficient harm’ is met in that the council’s decision not to take enforcement action is directly related to:
Harm to the environment by the removal of protected trees
Increased air pollution due to roadside parking delaying traffic
Road traffic accidents
Social engineering... denying normal rights to the tenants of social housing
Although KRA repeatedly stressed that the crux of the complaint was the unexplained loss of 13 parking spaces, this was not acknowledged or addressed by the Ombudsman and, in that sense, was a mirroring of the council’s own response.
The council had glossed over this important issue by claiming that there was no paperwork to indicate why the additional loss of spaces occurred and furthermore, because the member of staff who made the decision had now left the council, it was not possible to explore this any further. KRA was also informed that the correct level of parking provision was not the 183 spaces, agreed when planning permission was granted but was, in fact, the 170 spaces that were shown on the parking plan submitted by the developer and signed off by the council’s planning department some 14 months later. KRA does not accept this and furthermore, believes that the absence of crucial documents relating to a material amendment on a highly contentious development could be viewed as maladministration on the part of the planning department.
We therefore do not understand why the LGO Investigator did not appear to consider this possibility. There were also a consistent lack of ‘direct’ replies to our primary concern regarding the 13 missing spaces, in that it kept being responded to in terms of the withdrawal of social housing parking provision even though these were two completely separate matters.
In *KRA's final submission to the Ombudsman, we emphasised the main focus of the complaint and asked that East Herts Planning Department acknowledge their errors in
i.) Enabling the Liberty Rise development to go ahead, despite such meagre parking provision and also,
ii.) Permitting a further 7% loss of spaces.
The minimum redress we requested was that they (EHDC) negotiate with the Residents Management Group (RMGuk) and the Parking Management Company in order to introduce more flexible on-site parking arrangements.
Regrettably, this will now not happen but it does not change the fact that residents believe that errors were made which have impacted so negatively on the local Kingsmead community and this will certainly not be forgotten or forgiven.
As residents, the only lessons we have learned from the whole debacle is that whatever conditions are attached when planning approval is given for large developments there is absolutely no certainty that the developer will adhere to them. The council’s planning department apparently have no statutory duty to enforce these conditions and if, as happened with Liberty Rise, the developer breaches them, it is at the council’s discretion whether to take enforcement action. In addition, ‘material’ amendments to approved planning conditions (i.e. parking provision) can, it seems, happen without a return to the Planning Committee (DMC) or any record or retention of key decision documents.
*full information on KRA’s submission is available to KRA members on request from kingsmeadhertford@gmail.com
Comments