Local Government

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of concerns relating to the planning situation at an adjoining farm. In particular, she complained that the council had failed to ensure all planning conditions attached to planning consent for the erection of four houses were enforceable. She also complained that the council failed to follow planning procedures in relation to a planning application for a replacement shed on land owned by the farm and that incorrect information was contained in the officer's report for another planning application for the same site.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser, whose advice that the planning condition did not meet the standards of precision and reasonableness we accepted. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint and recommended that a full and unreserved apology be issued to Mrs C.

We also found that while the officer's report lacked detail, there was no evidence that the council had failed to follow planning procedure, and we did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint. The council also accepted that the officer's report had contained some drafting errors, and while we were mindful that a site visit had been carried out during which the planning officer would have seen the actual position when assessing the planning application, we found that the errors should have been corrected prior to determination of the planning application. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back our findings to staff responsible for drafting or approving planning conditions, as a learning tool; and
• demonstrate how quality checking is being used to improve the accuracy and quality of planning reports (both in relation to the accuracy of calculations, and to ensuring reports are sufficiently detailed to explain and support the planning decision).

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale and had not dealt reasonably with a request for rent remission (that she should not pay full rent during some of the time the repairs were taking place).

While we noted that a number of repairs were required and that there were delays, we did not find evidence that this was as a result of problems which the council could have predicted.

Regarding the request for a rent remission, we noted that Miss C had taken possession of the property following a mutual exchange, whereby she had agreed to take the property in the condition it was in. The council's view was that the property was habitable throughout the repairs, and as such full rent payment was due and no remission would be granted. We did not find this to be unreasonable and did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to act on concerns she raised about possible structural damage to her home caused by works carried out on the adjoining property. She was of the view that the building control team failed in their duty to protect her and her family from dangerous works, failed to respond appropriately to her phone calls and failed to communicate with her appropriately. She was also unhappy with their response to her subsequent complaint.

We found that the council had inspected the work and noted that the works which caused damage were to a party wall which was not included in the building warrant. The council obtained agreement from the neighbour to reinstate the wall and, having inspected the wall, they were satisfied that it was safe. The damage caused to Miss C's property by the works carried out by her neighbour were, essentially, private legal matters between her and her neighbour. Having reviewed the council's actions, we were satisfied that they responded to Miss C's concerns appropriately. We were also satisfied that they had provided a reasonable response to her subsequent complaint. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to follow their Unacceptable Actions Policy when restricting his communication with them.

Over a number of years, Mr C was involved with a website forum which focused on local politics. Material was posted on the forum which in the view of the council was offensive. The council wrote to Mr C advising that they were taking action under their policy and that they would no longer respond to communication from Mr C, whether written or verbal.

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's actions, including that they should have issued a warning and that the council's restrictions had no connection with the allegations made against him.

Having reviewed the council's Unacceptable Actions Policy, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We found that the council should have issued a formal warning to Mr C in relation to the conduct they were concerned about. We also found that the council should have provided Mr C with a more robust explanation of why they considered the restrictions on communication to have been necessary.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the procedural failings this investigation has identified; and
• feed back the findings of this investigation to the relevant staff.

Summary

Mr C complained about a property he rented from the council and about their handling of his complaint.

Two days after signing his tenancy agreement, Mr C reported that the heating was not working. He also raised a number of additional concerns about the property including problems with a fuse box, windows and insulation, and about how the council conducted repairs.

Based on the evidence available, we found the council acted in accordance with their allocation policy when letting the property. The council provided evidence that the heating system had been in working order after installation. The council also provided a property survey report evidencing that they conducted a reasonable assessment of the property. We also found that the council acted in accordance with their repairs policy in relation to the property. The council's records indicated that repairs were attended to within the council's time-frames. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

However, we found that the council did not respond to Mr C's complaints within a reasonable time-frame. In particular, we considered the council should have recognised his complaint at an early stage and provided a response accordingly. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified in the report regarding complaints handling; and
• feed back the findings of this investigation to the relevant staff.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council regarding a meeting he had with them to discuss proposed design changes to a public space. He told us that he felt the staff present had communicated in a manner which was hostile and patronising and that he had left with the impression that the purpose of the meeting was to bully and intimidate him rather than discuss the merits of the proposal in question.

Mr C had originally advised that he held a recording of the meeting in question, taken with the permission of everyone present. However, the recording had become corrupted and Mr C was unable to provide this.

On investigation, we found that the council had not taken minutes or made any other written record of the meeting. We did not consider this unreasonable in the circumstances but this did mean we were unable to reach a definitive conclusion, basing our decision on the limited records that were available.

On balance, we concluded that while it was clear that Mr C had left the meeting extremely dissatisfied with the manner council officers communicated with him, the evidence available did not support this complaint. What written communication was available was considered and professional in tone and appeared to suggest that the council were willing to discuss the issues in question openly and thoroughly. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the length of time it took the council to inspect and make safe a damaged wall in the cul-de-sac where she lived, as she was concerned about the health and safety of children who play there. She was also unhappy with the council's communication concerning the planned works on the wall, and their handling of the complaint that she raised with them.

We found that the timescale for inspection of the wall was at the discretion of the council. We therefore did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

However, we found a number of failings by the council with regard to their communication and the handling of Mrs C's complaint. We found that there was a delay in the council responding to Mrs C's complaint. The council did not inform Mrs C that they had undertaken an inspection visit or that their decision that the damaged wall did not constitute a hazard for the public. We found that they did not provide regular updates and that when Mrs C did receive information, it was often confusing and contradictory. We therefore upheld these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

The council apologised for some of these failings and have since repaired the wall.

Mrs C also raised concerns about a faulty fence and we made a recommendation relating to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified in this case;
• reflect on the failings identified during this investigation and advise this office of the steps they will take to improve their communication in similar circumstances in the future; and
• advise this office when the planned works on the fence have been completed

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to properly notify two neighbouring properties of a planning application near to her home. She was also concerned that the council granted planning consent despite being informed that land which the applicant had suggested was under their ownership was not. She reported a number of breaches of a planning condition restricting noise on the site outwith the working day and was unhappy that the council did not take additional action against the developer for breaching this condition. Mrs C was also unhappy with the way the council dealt with her subsequent complaint.

The council had previously acknowledged that, as a result of a computer error, they failed to notify two neighbouring properties. They explained the steps they had taken to fix their computer record and apologised to the owners of the properties concerned.

We were satisfied that the council had failed to notify these neighbours as they were required to, and we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. As they had already taken steps to correct their system records and had apologised to the property owners, we made no recommendations on this point.

As the council had obtained appropriate certification from the developer in respect of land ownership, as they had reminded the developer of their responsibilities to comply with the condition relating to noise outwith working hours and as they dealt with the complaint in line with their complaints procedure, we did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's actions in relation to planning issues for a development next to his home. He said that they had unreasonably considered the addition of an extra upper storey window in one of the houses in the development to be a non-material variation (a change which does not require planning permission). We took independent planning advice on Mr C's complaint. We found that the council had been entitled to consider that the additional window was a non-material variation and did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had found that a condition in the planning permission relating to the boundary at the site had been met, despite the fact that the fence built by the developer was constructed two metres short of the boundary and left several trees on Mr C's side of the fence. We found that it had been reasonable for the council to decide that the developer had complied with the terms of the planning permission in relation to the boundary. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to ensure that adequate on-site parking provision for workers was provided during the construction period. We found that the council's actions in relation to this matter, including their decision to take advice from their roads service, had been reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had failed to ensure that works did not take place at the development site outwith the construction periods referred to in one of the conditions of the planning permission. We found evidence that the council had adequately monitored the situation, including issuing reminders prior to bank holidays. We considered that the council had taken reasonable action to ensure that works did not take place outwith the construction period and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A) following the council's decision to deem Mr A intentionally homeless. We found the council had followed and applied the relevant legislation appropriately. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.