Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's planning department had not taken action to prevent his neighbour from erecting a garden shed in the wrong place. He felt the council should have taken earlier action because Mr C had made it clear to them where his neighbour had erected an area of decking, which would later be used as a base for constructing the shed. The council explained their role in planning enforcement and advised that at that stage there was no breach of development control that would allow them to take action. When Mr C's neighbour did build the shed in the wrong place, the council promptly took steps to ensure that it was relocated to the site approved under a certificate of lawfulness.

Having considered the council's response to Mr C's complaint and their actions, we were satisfied that they had acted appropriately.

Summary

When Mr C's neighbour was granted planning permission for an extension to his house in 2007, he objected to the application. His objections were considered and responded to in the planning report.

In November 2011, after the development started, Mr C complained to the council that the application was not reasonably considered. The council replied but Mr C was dissatisfied with their responses and complained to us that no impact assessment had been carried out and that the drawings submitted with the application had not been accurate. As part of our investigation, we obtained independent advice from a planning adviser. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council had acted appropriately within their professional discretion.

Summary

Mr C raised a complaint on behalf of Mr and Mrs A about the council's handling of their housing application. In particular they were dissatisfied that, following the withdrawal of an offer of a property on the advice of the council's occupational therapist, they were not reassessed in relation to their needs. Mr and Mrs A felt that as a result of the council's handling of the matter they had missed out on offers of properties that would be more suitable than their current home.

Our investigation found that the responsibility is on an applicant to notify the council of any change in their circumstances. We were provided with evidence that this had been explained to Mr and Mrs A, and that they had not missed out on any offers of properties. They had been advised to consider widening their areas of choice and type of housing to improve their chances of being offered a more suitable property.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues in connection with the planning review body. In particular, he said that the council had failed to provide accurate, clear and objective information on two planning applications. He also said that the council had failed to provide the planning review body with accurate, clear and objective information on their role.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found no evidence of fault in the way in which the council informed the planning review body.

Summary

Mr C said that the council acted unreasonably when granting a planning application for two houses. He complained that in doing so they had acted contrary to the opinion of their own adviser and officers and against the wishes of the local community. He maintained that the permission granted was in conflict with the council's own structure and local plans.

We investigated Mr C's complaint, taking into account all the complaints correspondence, minutes of the relevant committee meetings and the relevant planning documentation. We also obtained independent planning advice on the matters involved.

Our investigation found that Mr C was correct, in that the council's own advisers had said that a previous planning permission had brought the area concerned to capacity, and planning officers had recommended that the new application be refused. A community plan adopted by the council to inform the decision making process was also against the award of planning permission. However, the independent advice we received confirmed that the council had discretion to determine applications by interpreting development plan policies in a particular way, or by giving whatever weight it wished to the material considerations (genuine planning considerations related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest) that applied. Our adviser noted that development plans are not just for guidance, but also that they are not rigid instruments for determining planning applications. In this particular case, the adviser said, the council (via a delegated committee) had decided to approve the application and in doing so gave reasons why, together with their reasons for feeling that this was not a departure from the development plan. The adviser also went to explain that the community plan to which Mr C referred was non-statutory planning guidance, and the council had discretion as to the weight they gave it when making their decision.

Taking this advice into consideration we accepted that the council had acted in accordance with their discretion, and in awareness of all the relevant facts.

Summary

Miss C complained that a housing association had unreasonably refused to allow her to widen her driveway by allocating her land from her neighbour's driveway. She had asked for this for mobility reasons. Under the terms of the Equality Act 2010, the association have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to avoid putting people with disabilities at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who are not disabled.

Our investigation found that the association had considered, from a number of viewpoints, the possibility of extending Miss C's driveway. These included other available options for access to a vehicle, the current and future implications of extending her driveway and the impact that the agreed removal of a bin store would have on the space available for vehicle access.

In investigating this complaint we noted, however, that it was for the association to decide whether a proposed adjustment is reasonable. We decided that what the association had done represented a reasonable consideration of the proposed adjustment and that they had, therefore, made their decision appropriately.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the housing association's response to a request that her mother's designated parking space be altered. The association considered the request but decided that, taking everything into account, the alteration could not be made.

Mrs C complained to us that the association had not taken her mother's personal circumstances into consideration. We found, however, that there was clear evidence that they had considered her mother's circumstances and, based on these, had taken a decision that they were entitled to take. As there was no evidence of anything having gone wrong in the taking of that decision, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the housing association failed to offer a suitable resolution to her complaint about the condition of her garden. Our investigation found that the association investigated Ms C's concerns and explored what steps could be taken to improve the condition of her garden. They advised Ms C of their proposed solution but she was unhappy with that. However, we were satisfied that the association were entitled to decide what action to take in an effort to improve the condition of Ms C's garden. The fact that Ms C did not like the solution offered was not evidence that the association had failed to offer a suitable resolution and, because of that, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

In addition, Ms C complained that the association failed to deal with her complaint appropriately. However, after reviewing all of the evidence available, we were satisfied that the association took Ms C's complaint seriously and investigated the matter appropriately.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the housing association's response to complaints he had brought to them of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance. He complained that the association had failed to respond appropriately to his complaints.

Our investigation found that over a period of four years, Mr C had complained four times about noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour by his neighbours. In addition, he made a complaint to the council on one occasion, who shared this information with the association in a joint working arrangement. Our investigation found that each of these complaints was appropriately dealt with, but that the association could have given Mr C more information about what they were doing to resolve each situation. They had already identified this themselves, however, and had made changes to ensure that this did not happen again.

Summary

Mrs C's GP referred her to hospital because she suddenly lost the vision in her left eye. She was diagnosed with a blockage of the main artery supplying the retina (the inside lining of the eye), and her loss of vision was severe and permanent. Mrs C attended the hospital again a few days later with similar symptoms affecting her right eye. She was then given a high dose of steroids, as it was suspected she had giant cell arteritis (GCA - inflammation of the blood vessels, usually in the head, which can cause blindness).

Mrs C's husband (Mr C) complained to the board that Mrs C was not closely monitored after being prescribed such a large dose of steroids, but we did not uphold his complaints. After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we found that the relevant consultant kept Mrs C under appropriate review, and there was a clear plan for the management of her steroids. We concluded that although Mrs C did suffer side effects, which were very distressing for her, these were properly assessed against the risk of her losing her eyesight permanently and having a stroke.