Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application submitted by his neighbours. The council had granted planning permission, with an attached condition which stipulated that the recommendations in a tree report that had been produced for the neighbours were complied with. Some of the recommendations in the tree report related to trees that were on Mr C's property. As Mr C had refused his neighbours access to his trees, the planning condition could not be met. When Mr C's neighbours wrote to the council explaining this, the council stated that they considered the condition to have been fulfilled nevertheless.

We took independent planning advice. We found that it was unreasonable for the council to attach a planning condition that was unachievable to the planning application. We also found that rather than considering the condition to be fulfilled when they discovered it to be unachievable, the council should have asked the applicants to formally apply, under section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, for the condition to be varied or for the development to proceed without complying with the terms of the condition.

We noted that prior to our investigation the council had implemented new training and guidelines to reduce the possibility of a similar failing occurring again, and that they had accepted that the condition should not have been attached in the form that it was. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified by this investigation; and
• draw the comments of the adviser regarding section 42 of the Act to the attention of relevant staff.

Summary

Mrs C lived adjacent to a site on which unauthorised development had taken place. Mrs C was unhappy that the development had caused her property to flood and complained to the council that they had failed to take appropriate enforcement action to address the flooding.

We found that the council had served three enforcement notices on the developer in relation to the site, and that each of these had been appealed. We also noted that the developer had submitted a further planning application to the council, which meant that all enforcement action was on hold pending the outcome of this application.

In response to our enquiries, the council advised that they considered they had taken appropriate steps to take enforcement action against the developer. We took independent planning advice. The adviser considered that the council had taken reasonable steps in the first instance to ensure that the enforcement notices were served on the correct parties. However, the adviser was critical with the approach taken by the council in relation to the enforcement notices and did not consider that this approach would have been able to achieve the council's aim of preventing flooding to Mrs C's property.

While the adviser was critical of this aspect of the council's actions, we did not consider that this failing had altered the outcome of the case. This was because it was evident that the developer submitted a new planning application, which meant that all enforcement action would have been on hold anyway. However, we found that, in the event that the developer's latest application is refused, the council should reconsider enforcement action with the benefit of hindsight over the detail required in preparing the enforcement notices. We made a recommendation in relation to this and decided on balance to uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the adviser's comments to staff in the planning service.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the level of insulation in his new home and that his garden was being accessed by neighbours. He also made allegations of anti-social behaviour by his neighbours and was unhappy with the level of action taken by council staff to address this.

We concluded that the council had made a number of improvements to Mr C's property but that it was not suitable for underfloor heating, which he wished to have. We found evidence that the council had responded to the issues which they said were reported to them, although Mr C said that he had reported further issues. Overall we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the condition of his property on taking up his tenancy. He maintained that the property had not been in a suitable standard to re-let and that the council had delayed in conducting repairs to bring the property up to a habitable standard and in removing rubbish.

During our investigation the council provided evidence that Mr C had inspected the property prior to accepting the tenancy, agreeing that the property was in a re-let standard. The council also provided details of the repairs carried out prior to Mr C's tenancy to bring it up to the re-let standard. In addition they provided details of the repairs reported by Mr C and while the council accepted that not all the repairs met the target date for completion, their position remained that the repairs did not render the property uninhabitable. They also said that the work required would not have prevented Mr C moving into the property. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, the council had acknowledged and apologised for a delay in removing rubbish from the property and we therefore made a recommendation regarding this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in completing the works to remove rubbish from the property.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to include all objections to a planning application on their e-planning portal and that, although they acknowledged they failed to place his objection on the planning portal when considering his initial complaint, they told him it was on the planning portal when they responded to him at stage two of their complaints procedure. Mr C was unhappy with this inconsistency.

Mr C was also concerned that the council had ignored a planning condition restricting the start of development and had gone ahead with preparatory works which, Mr C believed, was contrary to the planning condition.

We reviewed the records and agreed with Mr C that his objection was not on the e-planning portal at the time the application was being considered. We upheld this element of Mr C's complaint.

We noted, however, that his objections were summarised in full in the planning officer's report to committee and they were, therefore, fully aware of his views. We also noted that the stage two response to his complaint was reasonable as Mr C's comments were on the online planning portal, but they were summarised in the report rather than being presented in full. We also noted that the condition Mr C considered was being breached by the council starting works had in fact been amended to allow works to go ahead at an earlier stage. For this reason, we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to us about the handling of a planning application for a wind turbine on land next to their property. They were concerned that the applicant had submitted inaccurate plans and that the application was registered under an inaccurate address. They were also concerned that the council had not fully assessed the impact of noise and that once the turbine was running, it created a noise nuisance.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. The adviser noted the poor quality of the location plans provided with the application and the inaccurate address. They were, however, satisfied that the noise impact assessment and other information provided to the planners by the environmental health service and the energy company were reasonable.

During our investigation it became apparent that there was confusion over whether distances related to the curtilage of Mr and Mrs C's property or their house. This was not evident from the council's records, and created significant confusion as to whether the planning application had been appropriately handled. Mr and Mrs C also raised concerns that there had been a lack of enforcement action in relation to the mast that remained in place, despite conditions on its removal.

Based on the inaccuracies in plans and the lack of evidence of appropriate consideration of the distances involved, we upheld the complaint, and made recommendations to address the issues raised.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings identified in our investigation;
• share the findings of this investigation with those staff involved in validating planning applications, to ensure that the council's check-list for applications is applied consistently;
• consider whether the planning officer involved would benefit from further training in the application and use of planning conditions; and
• consider the use of the council's planning enforcement powers in relation to the current situation.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's social work department did not investigate his complaint, as he submitted it after their deadline. We found that Mr C did submit his complaint after the council's deadline, and that the council had followed their procedures. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not acknowledge his contact when he repeatedly reported problems with street cleanliness and the condition of on-street bins. We found evidence that the council acted reasonably in response to some, but not all, of the issues raised.

The council acknowledged they failed to consistently provide the level of customer service Mr C was entitled to under their service standards. We also found Mr C was not given good information about the council's complaints process and that his many communications to the council were not always handled in an effective way. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

We noted that the council had offered to meet with Mr C on more than one occasion to get a better understanding of his complaint and that Mr C did not take up this offer. In doing so he missed an opportunity to have his outstanding concerns resolved.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified;
• offer to arrange a visit to explain the standard of street cleanliness to expect going forward; and
• carry out a review of how the council manage multiple contacts with named officers about more than one council service to identify potential improvements.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to comply with their bullying policy. Mrs C had raised issues with the council in relation to her daughter (Miss A) being bullied at school. The council explained that they had not initially treated the issues raised by Mrs C as bullying. They provided logs detailing concern by Mrs C that Miss A was being bullied and outlined the action taken by the school.

Mrs C was also concerned that Miss A was not given a suitable room on a school trip in light of problems with bullying and that the council had not looked into why her daughter had slept outside her room. In their response, the council provided a copy of the risk assessment that detailed that spot-checks would be carried out. However, there was no record detailing these checks. Although the council apologised to Mrs C that the information she provided prior to the trip had not been passed on to staff, we were concerned that there was no record of conversations with staff members. We therefore upheld these elements of Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the school did not provide accurate information on whether the school operated a buddy system. The council acknowledged and apologised for this and we therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C said that the council failed to keep reasonable care records. The council said they were satisfied that Miss A's notes contained sufficient information. However, we found in particular that they did not include a record of a pre-arranged meeting. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C also complained that staff at Miss A's school had inappropriate conversations with Miss A. While we were satisfied with the way the council had acknowledged the concerns Mrs C raised with them in this regard and had apologised, on balance we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Finally, Mrs C complained that the council did not handle her complaint or communicate with her reasonably. The council said that it was difficult to communicate reasonably as Mrs C had raised her complaints with a number of people. They said they would offer Mrs C an additional apology in relation to this. The council also accepted that there had been a delay outwith their own timescales in responding to Mrs C's complaint. In light of this, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider their procedures for organising school trips to ensure all relevant information is recorded and taken into consideration when organising a school trip;
• consider, in view of the issues raised in this complaint, whether there is a need for a formal record of the checks carried out on pupils during bed times;
• ensure that relevant staff are fully aware of all the strategies, including the buddy system, that are available to assist pupils experiencing difficulties; and
• consider the benefits of retaining a brief record or note of meetings with parents, in particular when these are pre-arranged.

Summary

Mr and Ms C, who work for a law clinic, complained on behalf of Miss B about the care provided to Miss B's mother (Mrs A) and the charges for this care, including that there was a long delay in notifying Mrs A's family about the amount of accumulating arrears. Miss B said they had been unaware as a family that the transport taking Mrs A to day care was a chargeable service. She said that by the time the family became aware of the charges, Mrs A had used the service for around a year. When they became aware that the transport service was chargeable, they cancelled it.

Miss B's complaints about delay and the lack of transparency were both upheld by the council. Miss B wanted to take these complaints along with the other issues she had raised to a complaints review committee (CRC), an independent body and the final stage of the council's social work complaints procedure. The CRC declined to deal with the complaints that had already been upheld by the council, saying they considered them to be resolved.

We found it was unreasonable for the council to decline to deal with upheld complaints at CRCs. We found that it was for the complainant to decide whether, or to what extent, individual complaints had been addressed or resolved. We therefore upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• arrange a CRC to hear evidence relating to the upheld complaints.