Local Government

Summary

Mr C lives near an open cast coal site which has been subject to several applications for planning consent covering specific areas of the site. Mr C made three complaints about the council's recording of operational complaints made by residents and the council's investigation of issues of dust and noise emissions from the site. He also complained about the council's failure to review relevant planning conditions to ensure effective monitoring.

Our investigation did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. We found that the council provided a reasonable explanation of how reports of noise nuisance and dust emissions and complaints were recorded by the relevant planning and environmental services. We found that the council responded appropriately to a specific complaint of dust emissions in March 2012 and with regard to a query made by Mr C in submitting photographic evidence. We also found that, when noise complaints had been made, these had been brought to the operator's attention. A sizeable number of mitigation measures (actions to reduce the noise or the impact of the noise) had been installed. Despite these, Mr C and other residents had continued to make complaints of inappropriately loud noise levels, which the council had investigated. In the autumn of 2012 the council sited noise equipment in Mr C's neighbour's property and the initial results suggested to the council that further controlled monitoring was required. At the end of our investigation the results of this monitoring were still awaited, and so we made a recommendation relating to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• complete their current noise monitoring exercise, analyse the results, and inform Mr C of any action they intend to undertake.

Summary

Ms C inherited a property from her mother, who had died unexpectedly. Unable to sell it, Ms C decided to rent the property out. She complained that the council had unreasonably held her liable for council tax during periods for which exemptions should have been granted. She said the council had pursued her relentlessly and had taken recovery action unreasonably when she had already provided all the information they had asked for.

We upheld all Ms C's complaints, as we agreed that the council took too long to resolve this. They missed the opportunity to reply to letters from Ms C in which they could have clarified that information, which Ms C clearly believed had been sent, had not in fact been received. We concluded that the council were also responsible for creating unreasonable confusion. Not only had they failed to clearly explain that information had not been received when Ms C repeatedly said it had been sent, they requested information which had already been provided, and did not send the correct exemption form. We concluded that the council should not have pursued debt recovery action when they had missed an opportunity to explain clearly to Ms C what information they still needed from her.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the distress caused by their administrative shortcomings;
• review arrangements in the council tax and revenues team for reviewing and responding to correspondence to ensure that customers receive a high quality and responsive service; and
• review any costs to Ms C arising from the recovery action taken by the council for the period in question and consider whether any reimbursement is warranted.

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.