Local Government

Summary

Mr C lives in a small estate. When the council granted planning consent for the development they approved landscaping plans, and put in place a planning condition to control the date of completion of the landscaping and the replacement of diseased or damaged plants. They did not, however, include any provision for a scheme of maintenance.

Mr C told us that some of the open space next to his home had not been landscaped, and he was concerned that other parts of the estate appeared to be getting a more frequent grass cut and related maintenance. He complained that the council failed to take reasonable action to ensure that landscaping in the housing development was in accordance with approved plans.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, and we upheld the complaint. The adviser said that while one approved drawing had included a landscape maintenance schedule, this had not been included in any of the relevant consents and this had given rise to Mr C's complaint. Mr C wanted the council to take enforcement action, but this was not possible.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their use of planning conditions with regard to securing control over the management arrangements for long term maintenance of landscaping and open space; and
• ensure that all application documents on which such matters depend are captured by references to approved documents in the terms of the decision.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take enforcement action over a number of breaches of planning conditions on a local site. Work on the site had stopped with only one of the planned houses completed. Mr C complained that the breaches of planning conditions had left the site unsafe, and that failing to enforce these conditions would set a precedent that allowed developers to ignore them without fear of enforcement.

We took independent advice on this from our planning adviser. He confirmed that the council were correct when they told Mr C that they were entitled to exercise their discretion in deciding whether it was an appropriate use of resources to pursue a breach of planning conditions. The council also had to consider whether enforcement was in the public interest, and had to take into account government advice that developers struggling to complete works due to financial pressures should not be placed under an additional burden by enforcement action for technical breaches of planning conditions.

Our investigation found that although the council had mistakenly said that one condition had been met fully when it had not, they had now taken enforcement action against the developer on this. The council were using their discretionary powers when considering whether or not to take enforcement action and had acted in accordance with Scottish Government guidance on planning enforcement. It was clear that there was no maladministration or service failure by the council and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy that the council breached a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). He told us that, because a council officer made wrong assumptions about which tree was to be felled, the council had granted permission for the felling of a healthy tree that was the subject of a TPO. Before Mr C brought his complaint to us, the council had acknowledged their error and apologised to him for it. However, Mr C said that the council had given him unsatisfactory and confusing responses to his complaint.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He said that the council had focused on inadequate explanations for the errors, instead of reviewing their procedures as they should have done. As the council appeared to have given more weight to defending their actions than to reviewing procedures, inconsistencies had then emerged in their responses to Mr C. The council had acknowledged that the wrong tree had been felled, and that the tree had not been properly identified before permission was given, which was a relatively serious mistake. The adviser had concerns that the complaint was not investigated thoroughly enough, especially as the deficiencies related to planning procedures. We upheld Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council's investigation and complaints handling was inadequate and inconsistent.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider the comments on the content of procedural guidance on tree works consent applications (in addition to matters already identified by the council) and advise the Ombudsman of their intentions with regard to carrying out a review of procedures and making the relevant staff aware of them;
• ensure that appropriate action is taken to avoid such an incident recurring and advise the Ombudsman of the action taken; and
• issue Mr C with a full and sincere apology for the failings identified in this complaint.

Summary

Mr C's child exhibited behaviour that led to a guidance teacher suggesting that the child be assessed for Asperger's syndrome disorder. Meanwhile the school worked on a protocol to manage the child's behaviour in class. Before this could be put in place, however, the child was involved in an incident that led to a referral to an Additional Needs Tribunal. The tribunal said that the council had not made reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. Mr C then requested a coordinated support plan for his child but this took over eight months to finalise.

Mr C complained to us that in planning his child's education the council did not apply policy and procedures to meet the additional support needs required, and failed to ensure that the school communicated with him and his wife appropriately and adequately. He also complained that they did not ensure that the school maintained adequate record-keeping, and that problems with his child's attendance were not promptly addressed.

We upheld three of Mr C's four complaints. We found that the guideline for providing a support plan is four weeks, and that the council had taken far too long to provide this at a particularly important time in the child's education. We also found that communications were inappropriate and that on three occasions records were inadequate. We did not uphold the complaint about attendance, as we did not find sufficient evidence to do so.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified in our investigation; and
• demonstrate that relevant staff are reminded of the policies, procedures and timescales to be adhered to when a coordinated support plan is requested.

Summary

After Mrs C began to extend the height of a fence in her garden, the planning department contacted her and explained that planning permission was required to do this. Mrs C said, however, that the council told her on more than one occasion that they could see no reason why planning permission would be refused. She applied for planning permission but this was refused some four months later. Mrs C was unhappy about the delay in reaching a decision on her application, and said that she was not kept properly informed and that she was given incorrect information about the likelihood of the application being granted. She complained to us that the council's handling of her application was unreasonable.

After carefully reviewing the relevant paperwork, we concluded that although the application could have been dealt with more quickly, when no decision had been made within two months, Mrs C had the right to appeal about the fact that her application had not been determined. We noted that the council had told her agent about this. The council had also accepted that she was not kept properly informed about progress, and had apologised. We did not see any evidence to confirm one way or another whether Mrs C was actually given incorrect information prior to her application being submitted. Having taken all this into account, on balance, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr and Ms C were unhappy with the council's handling of their complaints. After we contacted the council about this, the council decided that Mr and Ms C's complaints should be upheld and the second stage of their complaints process repeated. As Mr and Ms C were satisfied with this outcome, we did not take the matter further.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to respond to her complaint that council staff refused to provide receipts when she hand delivered letters to the reception desk at council offices. She told us that she had explained to the council that she did not use email and found it impractical to use registered post, but had experienced situations where council officials had denied receiving correspondence, or important documents had gone astray. She said that she had been told by council staff that the council do not provide receipts.

Our investigation found that the council do not have a policy or process for providing receipts where mail has been hand delivered, but were considering this as part of an ongoing internal review of their practices, which we considered helpful. We said we would ask the council to let us know the outcome of this. However, they were unable to explain why Ms C’s complaint about the matter was not dealt with under their complaints procedure, so we upheld that element of the complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review internal arrangements for the receipt, logging and acknowledging of complaints correspondence to provide assurance that the council fully comply with the requirements of the model complaints handling procedure;
• apologise to Ms C for the failure to deal with her complaints; and
• ensure that the issues Ms C raised in her letters of complaint are dealt with, in line with the council's complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council did not provide him with a reasonable standard of customer service when they failed to respond to his request for a copy of his marriage certificate in a reasonable timescale or, on two separate occasions, pay the postage on mail they sent to him. Mr C told us that the outcome he was seeking from pursuing his complaint was payment of his expenses.

When we raised Mr C’s complaint with the council, they apologised for the unfortunate series of events that had resulted in Mr C’s request not being dealt with properly, and failure to pay postage. To resolve the complaint, the council told us that the mail service was being reviewed as part of their service improvement programme. They also explained that staff had been reminded of the importance of ensuring that all items were appropriately stamped. As a remedy, the council offered a payment partly to cover his expenses and partly as a goodwill gesture. Mr C was satisfied with this, and we did not issue a decision on the case as it was resolved.

Summary

Mr C is the non-resident owner of a flat in a block where the council also owned a flat. When Mr C bought his flat in 2006, he was aware that the council wanted to carry out repairs to the building. While Mr C agreed, the other private owners did not, and only an emergency repair was undertaken. When the council tenant then found dampness in their flat, the council inspected the block and, given the lack of previous consensus on the subject of repairs, issued a statutory repairs notice. The database they used for notifying owners was not, however, updated and so Mr C and another non-resident flat owner did not receive letters about this, either from the council or from their contract administrators. Mr C eventually became aware of the notice some two years after it was issued, and paid his share of the costs. More recently, however, after media reports alerted Mr C to concerns about the administration of statutory notice contracts, he complained. Mr C received a final reply from a senior official some months later.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints about his requests for information about why the block of flats was selected for a statutory notice and the choice of contractor or about additional works undertaken, as we did not find that anything had gone wrong in this. We did, however, find that the council did not fully consider his complaint and review his case, as they had linked it to a similar complaint from another owner, and had not considered all the issues Mr C had raised.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider whether they should rebate the fee levied on Mr C for his share of the costs of the council’s administration of the contract.

Summary

Some years ago, a developer submitted a planning application to build a block of flats behind Mr C's home. The application included a plan showing an intention for plants to be used as a screen at the boundary between the flats and Mr C's property. During the application process, the council's development quality sub-committee carried out a site visit and issued a report requiring that a condition be included in any planning consent, requiring formal approval of landscaping plans with particular regard to screening at that boundary. Mr C complained on behalf of a number of local residents that existing plants were removed from there, and no screening was introduced. He said that the council had not enforced the planning condition.

We took independent advice on the complaint from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that the planning department approved the application and the associated landscaping plans, and had the appropriate delegated authority to do so. Revised landscaping plans were submitted that did not include screening at that boundary. As there was no specific planning need for this (daylight and privacy requirements had been comfortably met), and a strip of land to the east of the development was required for access to a gas main, the planning department approved the revised plans.

It was clear from the evidence submitted to us that the sub-committee were strongly of the view that screen planting should be used between the development and existing properties. Although we acknowledged that the final position taken by the planning department was reasonable, we were concerned that the planning department acted without taking account of the fact that the submitted landscaping plans were clearly at odds to those originally submitted and the intentions of the sub-committee. In response to our enquiries, the council had told us that the condition proposed by the sub-committee was unenforceable and did not meet the basic standards for planning conditions. That being the case, we considered that there was ample opportunity for the planning department to have highlighted this to the sub-committee before the planning decision notice was issued. The condition could have been amended or removed, avoiding expectations being raised that screen planting would be in place when the development was completed. We also considered that, as this had been a contentious development, which attracted a large number of objections, the council should have done more to ensure that their decision-making was transparent.

Mr C also raised concerns about the council's handling of his complaints, but we found this to be satisfactory.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their communication procedures so that in situations where approvals under planning conditions are clearly significantly at odds with the terms of the decision on the application itself, an explanation of the reasons is provided to interested parties; and
• review their procedures for identifying planning conditions that they consider do not meet the standards set out in planning circular 4/1998 and addressing such matters before decision notices are issued.