Local Government

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of an application for planning consent for a two storey extension to the house next door. They alleged that the council failed to handle the planning application appropriately. They said that the planning officer wrongly calculated the overall size of the house next door in assessing the extension; their objections were not appropriately taken into account, particularly with regard to overshadowing and light restriction to their windows; granting consent with a specific finish could only be achieved by the neighbours accessing their property; and the council failed to take into account the future difficulty of maintaining Mr and Mrs C's property.

As part of our investigation we obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We found that an error had indeed been made in failing to consider the earliest of several previous extensions to the property next door, which resulted in the wrong baseline being used to compare percentages. This did not, however, in the view of the planning adviser imply that consent had wrongly been granted. In general, appropriate consideration had been given to the council's supplementary planning guidance notes. We did not uphold the three other complaints. We noted that the applicant, as he was entitled to do, applied for consent to construct the extension up to the boundary but the council had, in granting consent, omitted to include a condition relating to a particular finish. We, therefore, made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider the error which occurred in this instance with a view to ensuring that in future the full relevant planning history of a property is assessed in respect of planning applications for domestic extension; and
• explore the reasons why, when the local plan guidance generally requires that the materials and finish of an extension match the existing house, such a condition was not applied to the consent on the application.
• 

Summary

Mr and Mrs C's property flooded on two occasions, once in 2009 and again in 2011. There was some uncertainty as to whether the flood water was rain or river water, however, as it was flowing onto their property via the public highway, they felt the council were responsible for taking action to prevent this. We identified that, in responding to the flooding reports, the council had surveyed the situation and taken steps to try to assist. We noted that they had attempted to have a neighbouring land owner address his private drainage system and they also carried out some clearance and repair works on the surrounding drainage. Following this, they were satisfied that the road drainage was fit to cope with normal conditions.

The council highlighted that responsibility for protecting their property from flooding lay with Mr and Mrs C and they offered advice on further steps they could consider taking to reduce the flood risk. The recently enacted flood prevention legislation requires the council to carry out clearance and repair works on bodies of water where they feel that this will substantially reduce the risk of flooding. In this instance, they were not persuaded that further clearance and repair works alone would substantially reduce this risk. This was a matter that the council were entitled to decide, and we cannot look at such a decision unless there is evidence of something going wrong in the way in which it was taken. We were satisfied that the council appropriately investigated Mr and Mrs C's concerns and took what we considered to be reasonable action to try to assist. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his clients about the way in which the council dealt with a neighbouring farmer's planning review application. He said that his clients were not given enough time to make their representations against the review, nor were their views, once made, taken into account. He also said that the review process was not adequately carried out nor were his clients' interests sufficiently protected . Finally, he complained that they were not told the outcome of the review which, in effect, deprived them of the right of appeal to the courts.

We investigated the complaint and obtained specialist planning advice. Our investigation found that most of the process was carried out in terms of the legislation, and we did not uphold three of the complaints. However, we found that although the council acted in accordance with the appropriate legislation with regard to notification they had not provided information on their website, as they said they had. On balance we decided to uphold the complaint about notification of the review. They also failed to officially tell Mr C's clients of the outcome of the review, which meant that his clients missed their opportunity to appeal, and we also upheld his complaint about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that information on their website concerning local reviews is made clear;
• demonstrate that processes have been put in place to prevent a recurrence of the situation; and
• apologise formally to Mr C's clients.
• 

Summary

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to assist her in finding safe accommodation when she informed them that she was being stalked and harassed by a local man. When Ms C then moved to two different properties through a mutual exchange programme, she raised a further complaint that the council did not properly consider another request to be re-housed due to noisy neighbours and persistent youth disorder outside her home.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. We found that there was insufficient information reported to the council about Ms C's alleged stalker for them to act. The evidence showed that the only records that the council had about this were noted in Ms C's housing application and that they had contacted the local police about these concerns. However, the police had told the council that they had no record of Ms C having reported being stalked. There was also little evidence of Ms C reporting persistent noise by local youths or her neighbours to the council. Therefore, we did not consider that the council acted unreasonably in not awarding Ms C priority housing.

Summary

Ms C raised a number of issues about the handling of a planning application for a development next to her home. She said that the council did not reasonably consider the application and did not reasonably respond to concerns raised during the construction of the development. Ms C also raised concerns about the handling of her representations.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Ms C's complaints. We found that the council had taken account of the relevant 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), and complied with their guidelines.

We were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the council took into consideration issues about privacy and overlooking, and the representations made by Ms C. We also found that the council had reasonably considered the proposed changes to the planning permission originally granted, had taken appropriate action and had responded to the concerns raised by Ms C. Finally, we were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the council had provided Ms C with reasoned responses to the issues she raised.

Summary

Ms C had to move out of her home temporarily while the council carried out repair work because woodworm had affected most of her property. Ms C said that the council assured her that the work would be carried out with the minimum of fuss and that her home would be returned in the same condition. She said that, during this time, on several occasions she and her partner were contacted by workmen to gain access to her home, although she had provided a spare set of keys before the work started. On one occasion, while on holiday, the council had called to advise her that they would have to force entry to the property if they could not get a set of keys, due to an emergency that had arisen involving her neighbour. On another occasion, Ms C said that she was asked to take keys to her home and lock up at the end of the day but on returning later, found the workers had left her home insecure. Ms C was also unhappy that the council had not got her to sign off individual work carried out at the property and that a housing officer told her that no cleaning or redecoration would be provided after the repair work. She also said that the council had not responded reasonably to two letters of complaint she sent.

We upheld most of Ms C's complaints. Our investigation established that the council met with Ms C before the work was carried out to discuss the significant amount of work to be done. As Ms C had highlighted that she had health problems, arrangements were made for a spare set of keys to be given to the tradesmen, and her partner was to be contacted in the event that the council needed to discuss any matter related to the work. During the time of the repair work we found evidence to support that there were problems with the different trades accessing the property. Whilst the council took steps a couple of weeks later to fit a key safe outside Ms C’s home, we considered that this could have been implemented sooner as the council would have been aware that the various trades would need access to the property at different times. We also identified that the council had tried to obtain feedback from Ms C after the work had been completed, but that it was not compulsory for the council to 'sign off' individual pieces of work, so we did not uphold that complaint.

Whilst Ms C gained access to her home in order to begin cleaning it prior to the work being finished, we did not find evidence to support that she was advised no cleaning would be carried out. On the contrary, there were records to show that cleaning was to be done after the work had been completed. However, we upheld her complaint that the property was not left in the state that she understood it would be. Finally, we upheld Ms C's concerns about the handling of her complaint, as we identified that the council had not compensated her for a missed appointment nor had they repainted her bedroom as stated in their complaint responses to her.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the problems with accessing her property;
• fulfill its agreement and ensure Ms C's bedroom is repainted; and
• that the council provide the Ombudsman with a copy of their apology letter and evidence to confirm that Ms C has been reimbursed for the missed appointments in August and September 2011.
• 

Summary

Mr C said that the introduction of the 'safer routes to school' programme in his area had impacted on his access to his home. He was unhappy that a traffic calming measure had been installed in front of his driveway without prior consultation. This had seriously restricted his access to his property, and had made manoeuvering his touring caravan into the driveway so difficult that he had to sell the van. He was particularly unhappy that the council later removed a similar calming measure from outside another property in his street but refused to remove the one outside his home.

Our investigation found that the calming measure had been installed by the developer of a new housing scheme and was a condition of the planning permission granted. The council said they were disappointed that the developer had not made Mr C aware of the detailed proposals, but that consultation was carried out with the community council. Although the developer had met the legal requirements for consultation, the council had in fact apologised to Mr C because he was not consulted directly. We upheld this complaint.

In relation to Mr C's complaint that the calming measure caused an obstruction, we found that the access to his property had been modified but the kerb had not been dropped to match the alteration, which had resulted in restricting his access. As we found that the council had offered to arrange for the kerb to be dropped but Mr C had declined this, as well as an offer to move the double white lines painted across the driveway further back, we did not uphold this complaint. Finally, we found that in the case where the calming measure had been removed, the occupant of the property had been able to demonstrate that it caused an obstruction, which Mr C had not been able to do. We did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that, when granting planning permission in similar circumstances, they direct the developer to the section on consultation in the Department of Transport’s Traffic Advisory Leaflet 11/94 which advises that all parties with an interest in the amenity, conservation or development of the area should be consulted.

Summary

Mrs C's neighbour installed a static caravan in their garden, next to her property. Planning consent was not obtained for this although the council told Mrs C that this was required under certain circumstances. The caravan was, at times, used for residential purposes, which would have required planning permission. However, although the owner submitted a retrospective planning application to the council, the use of the caravan then changed to office and storage space. This meant that planning permission was ultimately not required and the application was withdrawn. Mrs C complained that the caravan continued to be used as a residence, that a number of planning laws were not adhered to and that the council failed to take enforcement action.

We did not uphold these complaints. We were generally satisfied that the council took appropriate steps to determine whether the caravan was being used for residential purposes. When this was believed to be the case, they required the neighbour to apply for planning permission. However, they advised the neighbour that it was unlikely that permission would be granted and that residential use would have to cease. The neighbour withdrew their application and stated that the caravan would be used for office and storage space, which did not require planning permission. When concerns were raised about building control issues, we were again satisfied with the investigations carried out by the council and by their decision not to take enforcement action. We were also satisfied with the council's responses to Mrs C's enquiries.

Summary

Mr C is the owner-occupier of a property in a conservation area. His next-door neighbour applied for planning permission to demolish a section of an external wall and build a small single storey extension at the back of his property. The extension was to have a glazed door to the side (facing Mr C's property) and was to be clad with blue-grey stained timber. The council produced a report of handling recommending that the application should be granted.

Mr C complained that the character of the extension did not fit with the surrounding area and that the report of handling failed to refer to the local area character assessment. Mr C also complained about privacy issues relating to the door facing his property. The council recognised that it had failed to specifically mention the local area character assessment in its consideration, apologised for this and took action to ensure that decision-makers do so in the future. However, they said that this would not have affected the outcome of the decision and that they thought that the decision-maker's consideration of the general character of the extension and privacy issues was reasonable.

Following advice from our planning adviser, we decided that the council failed to consider the local area character assessment when it should have. However, our adviser told us that the key point was whether the principles underlying the relevant material considerations were, in fact, taken into account. In his view, they were. We considered, therefore, that the council had taken enough action to remedy the failures in this complaint. Furthermore, after careful consideration of the council's planning decision, we were unable to find evidence that the council misrepresented matters in its planning decision.

Summary

Mr C had applied to be re-housed. His application was also assessed for priority housing as he said he was being harassed in his current home. Mr C complained that there was a delay in processing his application, and was unhappy with a council visit to his home. He felt that the visiting council officer had been unprepared and he had concerns about the questions asked and the advice given. In addition, he was dissatisfied with the decision reached on his application for priority and the way he was advised of the decision. He was also unhappy that a council officer had contacted another department after he had been asked not to do so.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. During our investigation we found that, while there was delay in processing a request for information about the allegation of harassment, there had been no delay in processing his application for housing. Mr C's name was added to the council's housing list in line with their target timescales.

The evidence we saw also showed that after the council received all the information, including information from the police, they told Mr C their decision on his priority within their target timescales. While there was no evidence of anything having gone wrong in the council's handling of the issues raised, they had apologised for the distress and unsatisfactory service Mr C felt he had received, and for any confusion or misleading information received from officers with regard to his priority. The council had also apologised for the delay in processing the request for information and explained to us the action they had taken as a result of Mr C's case.