PE Penrith Morrison's Unlawful Signage

polyplastic

As we knowThe planning condition for the Morrisons site has this condition -

“The car park shall be available to thepublic for the first two hours free of charge or on terms not more onerous thanthose payable for use of the town centre car parks at Southend Road and BlueBell Lane.”

Blue BellLane Car park became part of the Sainsbury's development where the parking chargefor any alleged infringement is £70

Morrisons isalso subject to a s52 planning agreement (which is like a restrictive covenanton the land) and which indicates that the car park shall be made available onterms not more onerous than those applicable to the Council's town centre carparks.

Now we knowthat the Council's parking charge for any infringement is £70 and which is thesame as at Sainsbury. ParkingEye charge £85 so there is a breach of planningand of the s52 agreement.

It nowtranspires that the Council has agreed with Sainsbury a car park managementthat Sainsbury has to comply with. The Sainsbury development is also thesubject of a planning agreement as follows

“The Developer shall manage and maintain the carparks forming part of the Development in accordance with a scheme to besubmitted to and approved by the Council (such approval not to be unreasonablywithheld or delayed) such scheme to reflect that the car parks are provided forthe benefit of users of the retail and commercial premises to be constructedwithin the Development, the retail and commercial premises within Penrith TownCentre and the residents of the dwellings to be constructed within theDevelopment.

The scheme that is the subject of Paragraph 1hereof shall be in full accordance with regulations and a policy on tariffs tobe agreed with the Council (acting reasonably) and to be reviewed annuallybetween the Council and the Developer both parties acting reasonably and on thebasis that such regulation and policy should be largely consistent withequivalent practises adopted in privately and publicly owned car parks in othercentres across the County of Cumbria.”

So theparking charges have to be agreed with the Council and broadly they have to bethe same as in other car parks in Town. Sainsbury is playing the game inaccordance with its planning consent and the planning agreement.

Why thendoes the Council allow Morrisons to get away with its breaches of planningcontrol? Particularly when its Parking Charges are above those of the Counciland Sainsbury?

The Leaderof the Council, to its Scrutiny Co-ordinating Board on the 10th September 2015said about Morrisons the "Carparking regime applied in a car park owned and occupied by a third partyfundamentally is a matter for that other third party". This is clearly at odds with Eden Council’splanning policy and the planning agreement.

What else hasthe Leader said?

“A person is entitled to regulate land heoccupies.”– Well yes but not when the Council has decided that it wishes to regulate theparking on that land.

“Thefact that Morrisons do not yet have consent for the signs they have erected northeir failure to submit a Management Plan does not make the car park unlawful”. Err the erectionof the signage without consent is a crime

In response to the question “What action has been taken by Eden Councilto identify and remedy any such deficiencies?” the committee minutesindicates “ The Leader replied that nonewere unlawful.”

It is possible for the Ombudsman tomake an award of compensation where anyone suffers due to maladministration.Maladministration can arise due to -

1. delay

2. incorrect action orfailure to take any action

3. failure to follow proceduresor the law

4. failure toinvestigate

5. misleading orinaccurate statements

If anyone has receives a demand from ParkingEye,then you may wish to point out to them that all matters relating to the carpark are in breach of planning and send them a copy of the planning conditionsand certain correspondence from the whatdotheyknow website. If anyone has paidParkingEye you may wish to pursue a maladministration complaint against the Council.I would send in a copy of the Scrutiny Board’s minutes with the complaint.

Oh, hang on the minute, at thatScrutiny Board meeting, when asked whatwas the Leaders assessment of the Council being vulnerable to claims the Leaderreplied that on the basis of the information he had, he did not consider thatthe Council was vulnerable. Perhapssomeone should have provided him with different information?


Funny old world


Polyplastic