Local Government

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for a proposed road development. He was concerned about the environmental report used in public consultation. He considered it to have been unclear and inaccurate, and said that the council should re-run the consultation. Mr C was also concerned that the environmental report did not take into account issues such as potential flooding and noise. He said that the council had also exaggerated the negative impact of one of the options to ensure that it was not selected.

We found that the council had taken Mr C's comments into account. They amended the report to reflect his comments about inaccuracies and corrected typographical errors. They also took steps to ensure clearer map information in the revised report. The council consulted with the appropriate agencies before preparing the report and we were, therefore, satisfied that they had included the necessary environmental issues in it. We also noted that the SEA was only one part of a process of environmental reviews to be carried out. While we noted the option Mr C favoured, and the amendments to this option that he suggested, we also took account of the council's statement that a number of options were selected at an earlier stage, using similar processes. We found no evidence to support his view that the council deliberately tried to ensure that this option had a higher environmental impact than necessary.

Summary

Mr C complained about storage and collection of household waste at the building where he lives. He was unhappy that when he asked about providing a bin store, the council had said he and other residents should pay for this. Mr C was also unhappy that the council said that they had to present their bins at the kerbside for collection, which he said was a change to the existing arrangement.

Although Mr C was unhappy with the council's responses, we did not uphold his complaints. Our investigation found that, as Mr C lived in a private development, there was no obligation on the council to pay for a bin store. We also found no evidence that the council had changed the existing arrangement.

Summary

Residents complained that the council unfairly declined their request to have a tree, which was affecting their amenity, pruned. They were especially unhappy because the council had carried out maintenance on the tree in the past. The residents said that they had obtained their own survey from an independent tree surgeon, who had told them that the tree could be pruned without affecting its health.

Our investigation found that the council surveyed the tree in 2008, and again in 2012 in response to the residents’ complaints. On both occasions they decided that it was in a fair condition, and did not need any work carried out. Although the survey undertaken by the council differed from what the residents said they had been told, we were unable to uphold the complaint because this came down to a matter of professional opinion. There was nothing to show that, in declining the residents’ request, the council failed to take into account relevant information.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his concerns about dampness in his property following storm damage to his roof. He also raised his concern about the council's handling of his complaints.

During our investigation we found that the council had carried out repairs to the roof and had arranged for two independent surveys to be carried out in connection with Mr C's concerns about dampness. Although the surveys did not identify any new evidence of water coming in, repairs were carried out as suggested in one of them. Given Mr C's continuing concerns about dampness the council agreed during our investigation to carry out a further independent survey of his property by a company not previously used. We were satisfied this was a positive response to Mr C's continuing concerns and did not uphold this complaint.

We did uphold his complaint about complaints handling. We found that that the council had failed to handle Mr C's complaints in line with their own procedure. However, as they had apologised and had taken action to draw the matter to the attention of relevant officers, we did not need to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C was concerned that a neighbour’s CCTV cameras appeared to include his property in the field of vision. He was not satisfied with the way the council looked into his complaints about the matter. Mr C said the council gave him conflicting information about the cameras, and about the law relating to these, and whether or not planning permission or a certificate of lawfulness was required. He was unhappy with the way the council had taken the matter forward and with the information he was given and brought the complaint to us.

We did not uphold the specific complaints Mr C brought to us, but were critical of the council for an apparent lack of transparency. We said they should have verified information rather than making assumptions, and we made recommendations for improvement.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that, in future, possible relevant options for action are clearly explained to all parties involved in a complaint of a breach of planning; and
• remind staff making site visits to check and verify the information that they record and pass on, as well as keeping a written record of the visit.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his planning application. He said that the application had not been handled in accordance with the scheme of delegation which empowered council officers to make decisions. Mr C felt the application should have been determined at officer level rather than referred to a committee of council members.

Our investigation found that the council officer did have the delegated power to make a decision, but was not obliged to do so if he felt that a decision should instead be made by the committee. We found that the council had done nothing wrong in this respect.

Summary

A tree next to Mr C's home fell onto his property. Mr C complained that, before this happened, the council failed to take appropriate steps to maintain trees and the footpath. He said they also failed to adequately assess the situation after the incident and did not handle his complaint appropriately.

In considering Mr C's complaint, our role was to look at the council's tree management process and assess whether it was applied appropriately. The council are responsible for deciding what processes and procedures to put in place. Our investigation found that the council recognised the potential risk caused by dangerous trees and had appointed professional consultants to undertake a survey which started just over a year before the incident. The trees opposite Mr C's home were assessed but no works were identified as needing done. After the incident, the council confirmed they took professional advice from their tree officer before reducing the heights of the remaining trees. In light of this information, we were satisfied that they had an appropriate policy that they had applied, and we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint. However, we did find that the council had not properly registered his complaint in line with their complaints procedure and because of that, we upheld this aspect of his complaint.

Summary

Miss C, an owner-occupier, complained to the police and to the council that a council tenant in the flat below was smoking cannabis or allowing cannabis to be smoked and this was diffusing into the common stair and into her flat. As a result of a police visit, a person in the flat admitted he had been smoking cannabis. Our investigation found that after Miss C complained to the council, a housing officer visited the tenant and gave a verbal and written warning about adhering to their conditions of tenancy. While Miss C complained that the council had failed to take proper action and had failed to answer the specific questions she had raised in her letters of complaint, the evidence we saw did not bear this out.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of himself and his neighbours about the council’s handling of a planning application for the erection of a telecommunications mast near his home. Mr C said that he and his neighbours only became aware of this some seven months after it was approved, when work started at the site. He complained that the council failed to carry out the necessary public notifications on the planning application, failed to process the application correctly, and that their report on the planning application was misleading.

In response to our enquiries, the council said that they sent a neighbour notification letter to Mr C in the same way as to other notifiable residents. Although the letter did not appear to have reached Mr C, the evidence suggested that the council did send it, in accordance with normal procedure.

We took independent advice on the other matters from one of our planning advisers who said that the council acted appropriately and advertised the application in accordance with the regulations. The council had, however, acknowledged there were failings in notifying objectors of the outcome of the application and apologised for this. Our adviser said that their remedial action was not sufficient and that further steps should be taken, so we made recommendations that reflect this. We also noted that in the planning report the council incorrectly named the newspaper in which the application was advertised, but considered it unlikely that consideration of the application was prejudiced by this.

In terms of processing the application, our adviser explained that it would be normal practice for there to be some consultation between the council's planning and roads departments. It was clear that there was no record of consultation in this case although the council repeatedly said that it had happened. Based on the evidence on file, it was not possible for us to determine whether or not it did happen, and we were critical of the council for failing to keep a record of the consultation. However, the adviser said that as road safety was not an issue in planning terms, the outcome of the consideration of the application would not have been adversely affected if there had been no consultation. Our adviser also explained that the council were required to consider the application against their development plan; a plan which he said was well in line with good practice on such policies. There was no requirement for the council to have a spatial strategy for telecommunications equipment or to suggest alternative sites for masts. On land ownership, our adviser said it would be reasonable for the council’s planning department to take the information in the signed ownership certificate from the applicant at face value and that there was no requirement for anyone to obtain the owner’s agreement to the submission of an application.

On the accuracy of the report, our adviser said that the 30 metre distance referred to in the site section of the planning report would not have misled the planning committee. He explained that the determining issues in this case were consistent with policy and that the omission of consideration of the tree preservation order and information on the deciduous nature of the trees was not prejudicial.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make staff aware that the planning report incorrectly stated the newspaper in which the application was advertised and take steps to try to ensure that such errors do not happen in future;
• feed back to the staff involved our adviser’s views on the importance of objector notification and the potential environmental justice implications;
• amend their procedure to reflect our adviser’s views on objector notification; and
• adopt a more rigorous mode of recording significant information, such as the outcome of informal consultation with Roads, for the purposes of subsequent audit.

Summary

Mr C complained about the conditions imposed on his licensed premises, and about how the council handled his complaint about this.

We explained to Mr C that we could not deal with his complaint about the conditions, which had already been the subject of legal proceedings. We did investigate his complaint about the complaints handling, and found that there had been several shortcomings. The council did not adhere to their complaints procedure or inform Mr C of their intention to deviate from their usual process. They took far too long to respond to his complaints and on some occasions failed to acknowledge his letters. They also did not tell Mr C that he had a right to complain to the Standards Commissioner.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the shortcomings identified in our investigation in respect of the handling of his complaint that have not already been the subject of an apology; and
• draw our report to the attention of the head of legal services.