Local Government

Summary

Miss C lives next to a sports facility, which was opened in 2006. She complained that the council failed to take responsibility for the escalating problems arising from the use of the football pitch, or to provide appropriate measures to resolve the nuisance. Miss C also complained that the council delayed in dealing with her complaint.

We explained to Miss C that we could not look at the decision to grant planning permission or any of the things that happened before she complained to the council in 2011, essentially because these were too old for us to look at. Our investigation did look at the recent action the council had taken to address concerns of nuisance arising from the use of the facility, and noted that there was evidence that they had engaged with Miss C, and others acting on her behalf. Although she said she thought more could be done to resolve the nuisance, Miss C did not identify what this was. We did not uphold this complaint. We were satisfied that the council took action to try to address Miss C's concerns, and in responding to our enquiry, they had agreed to meet Miss C to discuss any outstanding issues and whether a solution could be found.

We did, however, find that the council delayed in dealing with Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the delay in handling Miss C's complaint.

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 complained that a councillor made inaccurate statements at a planning committee hearing, which caused the committee to reject Mr C's application. He also complained that when he raised his concerns with the council they failed to carry out a reasonable or prompt investigation into his complaint.

As Mr C appealed the decision to reject the application, and was successful, and as he had the ability to make a claim for fees at his appeal, we explained that we could not look at the councillor's comments. We examined the council's investigation into his complaint and established that it was reasonable. However, as it took substantially longer to conclude than it should have done, and as the council failed to keep Mr C updated on progress, we upheld his complaint about the investigation, although we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

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

Mrs C complained that the council failed to notify her when her neighbour applied for an amendment to planning permission for an extension. She also said that the council issued a completion certificate for the extension although the works were not completed, and had failed to rectify this. Mrs C also complained that the council delayed in investigating her complaint and did not investigate it properly.

Our investigation found that the council granted the original planning permission in 2010, and that they had already apologised to Mrs C for failing to notify her about this. We also found that the planning permission had never been amended and so there had not been any further fault in providing Mrs C with neighbour notification. The work that had not been completed in accordance with the approved plans was to paint the wall facing Mrs C's garden. We found that the building warrant granted for the works said that the wall was to be finished in render but, as the colour of the render was not relevant to the warrant, the fact that it was not painted did not impact on the granting of a completion certificate. The council had in fact tried to negotiate with Mrs C's neighbour to have her paint the wall, and although she had said she would do so, this had not yet happened. Any formal action (enforcement) is a matter for the council's discretion. The council had decided, as they were entitled to do, that they could not justify taking formal action to enforce a colour change on a wall that was not open to public view, so we did not criticise their actions on this. We did, however, make recommendations about their notification process and about how they take the matter forward.

We found that there was a slight delay by the council in responding to the complaint, but that they had already explained the reason for this and apologised to Mrs C. We did not find any other faults in their complaints handling.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their neighbour notification process to ensure it is robust and ensures relevant neighbours are notified of planning applications; and
• continue their efforts to have Mrs C's neighbour comply with the approved plans.

*due to an administrative error, the subject of this case was updated 5 December 2013

Summary

Mr C applied, through architects, for planning consent to demolish a small bungalow and to build a substantial two storey house. There were no objections to his application and it was determined under the council's scheme of delegation (where the decision is taken by planning officers rather than by a committee of the council). Although a supportive engineer's report and landscape report were provided, the planning case officer had reservations about recommending approval. There was also a replacement local plan being discussed. Because of this, the officer suggested three times that the application should be withdrawn and resubmitted. Mr C, however, insisted on continuing with the application. When officers decided to refuse planning permission, Mr C engaged a planning consultant and requested that the decision be reviewed. The local review board considered this and, by a narrow majority, upheld the officers' decision. Mr C complained to the council about the handling of the application and the review process.

Mr C then made seven complaints to us detailing a large number of points that he wished considered. Four of the seven complaints were about his concerns that there were deficiencies in the processing of the initial application and the report of handling; two were about the administration and conduct of the local review board; and the seventh was about the council's handling of his complaint. We upheld two of the complaints - about the processing of the initial application and inadequacies in the report of handling. We did not, however, find that the officers unreasonably withheld consent, and we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations. Our investigation found that, in large measure, identical issues had been set out in the planning consultant's very detailed submission to the local review board. We did not uphold Mr C's other complaints.

Summary

Mr C and Ms C live in a conservation area. They made five complaints about the council's handling of two related planning applications made by their next door neighbours to construct a two storey rear extension. A consequence of the proposed works was the blocking of an existing first floor bedroom window, and the insertion of a new window facing Mr and Mrs C's property. This had consequences for Mr C and Ms C's family's privacy, as the new window overlooked one bathroom and two bedroom windows in their home. Mr C and Ms C had received appropriate neighbour notification about the applications but there was no specific mention of the window in the description of the works or supporting statements. This meant that their attention had not been drawn to the proposed new window, and so they had not objected.

Our investigation upheld three of Mr C and Ms C's four complaints about the processing of the applications (both of which had been the subject of a site visit by the planning case officer). Having taken independent advice from a planning adviser, we found that the absence of objection was not material. The onus rested with the council to demonstrate that they had fully assessed the applications in accordance with the relevant development plan including relevant supplementary planning guidance with regard to privacy in the two reports of handling. We found that the council had not done that and so we upheld these complaints. We also upheld a complaint that the council had provided unsatisfactory and inconsistent responses to Mr C and Ms C's complaint (in relation to the effect of the conservation area designation).

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider its position in securing the necessary works to alter the daylighting of Mr C and Ms C's neighbour's first floor room to remove the overlooking of bedroom windows in Mr C and Ms C's property.

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

Mrs C was issued with a penalty charge notice (PCN) for parking in a restricted area and obstructing the road. She complained to us that the council failed to give her the right to appeal the PCN to the parking adjudicator. In considering her complaint, the council explained that they followed the correct process when dealing with the PCN, and had no records of Mrs C requesting an appeal.

Our investigation was unable to obtain evidence from either party to support Mrs C's position. As we could not find additional supporting evidence that she had requested an appeal, we were unable to uphold her complaint.