Easter closure

Please note that we will be closed from 5pm Thursday 28 March until Tuesday 2 April 2024 for the Easter break. Complaints can still be made via our complaints form but they will not be received until we reopen. Wishing you a happy Easter! 

Technical issues:

The SPSO advice line is currently unavailable due to technical issues which we are working with our telephone provider to resolve.  We apologise for the inconvenience and hope to find a resolution as soon as possible. 

Decision Report 201605668

  • Case ref:
    201605668
  • Date:
    December 2017
  • Body:
    Glasgow City Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    handling of application (complaints by opponents)

Summary

Mr C lives in a conservation area. An application for planning permission for external alterations to a property neighbouring his was submitted to the council. The proposal was to increase the height of the roof of an existing utility building and associated works to create additional living space. Mr C submitted objections to the proposal. The council produced a report of handling of the application and granted full planning permission subject to conditions. The first of these was that the development had to be implemented in accordance with the approved drawings.

Mr C was concerned that the council's decision had been procedurally flawed and based on inaccurate information. He complained to the council about this. At both stages of the council's complaints procedure the responses stated their conclusions that the decision had been taken properly and on the basis of accurate information. Mr C was dissatisfied with these responses and raised his complaints with us.

We upheld Mr C's complaints that statements in the report were inaccurate (specifically statements that the pitch of the roof 'will match' the main house and that the rooflights will be 'invisible from a public area'); that the approved drawings associated with the application did not contain sufficient written dimensions to ensure that the precise location and scale of what was being proposed was clear; and that the council did not respond reasonably to some of Mr C's complaints. We did not uphold complaints that the evaluation of the application against relevant guidance was unreasonable or that the inadequacies of the report of handling meant that the decision on the application was unreasonable.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to Mr C that they did not respond reasonably to some of his complaints about the handling of the application.
  • Provide Mr C with a direct response to his complaint.
  • Amend the approved drawings for the application to ensure the precise location and scale of what was being proposed, and has been approved, is clear.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

  • Relevant council staff should be reminded that statements of fact in reports of handling should be accurate.
  • Relevant council staff should be reminded that approved drawings should be adequately dimensioned to ensure the precise location and scale of what is being proposed is clear.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

  • Relevant council staff should be reminded that issues raised in complaints should be directly responded to.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Updated: March 13, 2018