Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of planning proposals for a new academic campus some distance from his home. A council committee granted planning approval in principle in May 2010 although the consent was not issued until March 2011. An initial application for consent for 'matters specified in conditions' was submitted in June 2011 and that formed the main basis of Mr C's four complaints. (Such applications relate to conditions attached to planning permissions in principle which require the further approval, consent or agreement of the planning authority for any detailed aspect of the development.)

Mr C complained that the council provided inaccurate and misleading information about access arrangements to the campus; a council officer failed to remain impartial when providing advice to a councillor and acted unreasonably by failing to respond to Mr C's letter, and the chief executive failed to respond to Mr C's letter of complaint within a reasonable time scale.

Our investigation found that the council conceded that the report on the first 'matters specified in conditions' application could have been clearer. It was not, however, acted on. The matter was put to the relevant council committee and continued, when it was re-presented in an amended form and considered along with a second 'matters specified in conditions' application. Both applications were approved. As we found no evidence of maladministration we did not uphold this complaint. Nor did we uphold the complaints about the council officer. We found no evidence to suggest that she was not impartial in giving professional advice to the councillor, and while Mr C provided evidence that he had emailed a letter to her, we could not independently confirm that she had received it. We did, however, uphold the complaint about the chief executive's response, as he accepted that it had been delayed. We did not make any recommendations as he had already apologised to Mr C for this.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C who were housing association tenants raised their concern about the condition of their back garden. A joint visit by the council and the housing association to view the condition of the garden had been carried out in 2007. The complainants were unhappy with that visit and disagreed with the accuracy of the report prepared by the council following the visit in 2007. They were dissatisfied that the council had now advised them that they would not inspect their back garden.

Our investigation found that there was no evidence of maladministration in relation to the council's handling of the matter. The council's social work service had visited the property in 2006 and had made a number of recommendations to the housing association in line with their social work responsibilities. At the request of social work services the council's health and safety adviser had visited the complainants' property in 2007 and had prepared a note of the visit. This was within their remit of giving advice to social work services. While Mr and Mrs C disagreed with the accuracy of the note, the council had confirmed that the officer who had drafted the document had confirmed that it was an accurate record. We advised the complainants that, as this related to a note prepared a number of years ago and as the officer was no longer with the council, further enquiries by this office would not add to the information already available.

We also found it was not within the remit of the council's health and safety service to carry out an inspection of a household at a householder's request and, as a result, the council had advised the complainants that they would not carry out a visit to their property. However, we found that discussions were ongoing between Mr and Mrs C and the housing association, as their landlord in relation to the garden.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of the residents of a new housing development, which consisted of a number of buildings. Planning permission had been approved for the development on the basis that one parking space would be provided for each property. However, due to a mistake by the developer’s architect, there was a shortfall in the number of available spaces. The developer submitted a further application, changing the proposal for one of the buildings so that underground parking that was originally planned would not be provided. Ms C complained that the council approved the second planning application without considering the impact that this had on the overall parking provision for the development.

We found that it was appropriate for the second application to be considered separately and on its own merits. However, our planning adviser told us that the council should take into account the wider context of the application, including parking provision for the site as a whole. The council had said that they did not consider the parking problems on the wider site to be a material consideration when determining the second application. We were satisfied that there was clear evidence of the matter being investigated and considered fully.

Our investigation highlighted that the developer sold a number of properties to a housing association, and the proposed number of parking spaces for those properties reduced to 25 percent in line with the requirements for affordable housing. However, the properties were later to be sold as shared ownership flats, which require 100 percent parking. We noted that the council did not have a policy in place for shared ownership properties' parking at the time of sale. Once the matter was brought to their attention, however, they amended their policy and ensured that the developer would provide 100 percent parking.

Ms C also complained that the council were working with the developer to use existing landscaped space for parking. Residents found this inappropriate, as the landscaped areas were a requirement of the original planning consent and were already minimal. We found no direct evidence of the council encouraging the developer to make use of these areas or of working with the developer. However, it was clear that the council would consider any proposals put to them, including the use of landscaped areas. We did not consider this to be inappropriate, but we made a recommendation relating to the outcome of any decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• upon determining the planning application, provide a full and detailed explanation to the residents' steering group of the reasons for their decision.

Summary

Mr C said that when he moved into his house, he was aware that affordable housing was being built on land behind it. He found out later that this was to be social housing. When building was completed, the council opened a link pathway between the two estates and Mr C said that since then he had been subject to antisocial behaviour from residents of the new estate. He considered that the path was the root of the problem, and asked the council to close it. His request was heard by the council’s leadership panel. It was initially intended that the item about his complaint should be held in private but, on the day, the panel took the decision to hold the meeting in public and he was not notified of this.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that, in deciding to recommend that the item be held in private, council officers took the view that there was a risk of potential victimisation of Mr C and of others requesting the closure of the lane. We also found, however, that the relevant legislation provides for the holding of council meetings in public, except where the council decides to exclude the public when considering an item that is likely to disclose exempt information. Decisions about whether to consider an item in public or private take place at council meetings. We accepted the view of one of the panel members that the matter was of some local interest and that it would have been inappropriate to hold it in private as it had been discussed several times at tenants' and residents’ association meetings. We also accepted the council’s explanation of why it would have been remiss of them to have encouraged attendance at a meeting where the original decision for discussion in private had been taken to protect the residents making the complaint.

Summary

Mr C lives close to a church building which had fallen out of use. It had been the subject of unsuccessful planning applications for conversion and change of use to flats. In late 2009 a successful application was made to convert the building to a crematorium. Mr C and his wife did not live close enough to the building to be notified about this application. In the autumn of 2011, however, Mr C became aware of the provisions of the Cremation Act 1902 (the Act), which stipulate that no new crematorium should be built closer than 200 yards from the nearest house or 50 yards from a public road, without the permission of owners and occupiers. Mr C complained to the council, saying that they had failed to have proper regard for the Act in granting planning consent for the conversion and failed to protect Mr C's residential amenity; unreasonably delayed in dealing with his complaint, and unreasonably failed to answer his questions about their response to a Scottish Government consultation on the Act.

After seeking independent advice from our planning adviser, we found that the council, with qualification, were entitled to decide that the distance stipulations were not relevant to the granting of planning consent as they formed part of a different regulatory framework. There was also no evidence that the amenity of residents was disregarded when determining the application, and we did not uphold these complaints. We found that there had indeed been a delay in dealing with Mr C's complaint (but the council had apologised) and that they had neglected to answer his query about the council's consultation response. That issue was resolved by a senior officer explaining an apparent inconsistency. We, therefore, upheld both of those complaints, but made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council charged him a late renewal fee for his landlord registration, although he had not received email reminders that the council said were issued. The council confirmed that these were issued automatically by the Scottish Government’s online landlord registration system and that nothing had been received from Mr C’s email address saying that they were not delivered.

We were unable to prove or disprove whether the reminder emails were sent and received. However, when we investigated it was clear that it was Mr C’s responsibility to ensure that he renewed his registration in a timely manner. His previous registration in May 2008 was valid for three years. It was, therefore, due for renewal in May 2011. However, we found that he had not contacted the council for advice on the application process until March 2012. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the way the council dealt with a retrospective planning application for work that she had carried out in her garden. In particular, she was concerned that the council alleged that trees had been felled without authorisation, destabilising the bank. She was concerned that these comments had affected her planning application and raised public feeling against her application.

We found that the council had only noted one instance of unauthorised felling, the previous year, and had discussed this with Mrs C at the time, when she had agreed to replanting. We found that it was reasonable for them to mention this in the planning report and that information later passed to a councillor, which Mrs C had complained about, was also simply noting the landscape officer's observations. As we took the view that the council had reported the matter accurately, and as the landscape officer's observations were reasonable, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C had a blue badge for disability parking for a number of years but when he applied to the council in 2010 to renew it, his application was refused. Mr C said that this was despite his condition worsening. He re-applied in 2012, following surgery, and was granted a blue badge. He believed that the council did not handle his earlier application properly, and misinformed him when they said that it was successful in 2012 because of a change in legislation. Mr C also said that his GP did not have full information on which to make an assessment, and believed that there were flaws in the council's review process that resulted in his appeal being unreasonably declined.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that changes in the regulations from 1 January 2012 did clarify the health grounds on which a local authority can exercise discretion to award a blue badge, where this is not automatically awarded (if an applicant is in receipt of certain benefits). There was no evidence to suggest fault in the way the council considered Mr C’s 2010 application. Mr C’s GP had the opportunity to comment on his application and the council’s records confirmed that it was assessed in accordance with their procedures. The information that Mr C’s GP had provided was not copied to him, but it is not the council's practice to do this, and Mr C had not asked for a copy.

Mr C had suggested that an appeal process should bring the parties together to discuss the application, and this would have identified that his GP’s records were not up-to-date. However, it was evident that the review of the decision to refuse Mr C’s application was conducted in accordance with the procedures in place at the time.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's failure to assert what she believed to be a public right of way. In addition, she raised concerns about the council’s failure to take enforcement action against a resident who used part of this area as a garden and had enclosed it, preventing access.

Our investigation looked at the council's responsibilities in terms of rights of way. We found that they carried out a substantial consultation exercise to determine whether or not the local residents were aware of a right of way at this location. They decided that they did not have sufficient evidence to establish whether or not a right of way existed and that they would, in all likelihood, be unable to defend such a decision in court.

The council also explained the process they followed when considering whether to take enforcement action. Having considered all relevant background information, and sought evidence, they were satisfied that they should not pursue enforcement action in relation to the change of use of the land or the enclosure of the ground.

Having considered the information provided by both parties, we were of the view that these were discretionary decisions - ie decisions that officers were entitled to take. We cannot look at such decisions if there is no evidence that something has gone wrong when taking them. As we did not find evidence of administrative failure, we did not uphold these complaints.

We did uphold a complaint about the way the council dealt with the complaints raised by Mrs C. As they had already apologised for the delay in responding to correspondence, however, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C raised a complaint about the council's handling of a cement batching plant at a quarry. In particular, Mr C complained that the cement batching plant had changed from being an ancillary operation at the quarry to a mainstream operation and that the council had failed to require the operator of the quarry to obtain planning permission. Mr C also said that the council had failed to monitor lorry traffic to and from the quarry, and was unhappy with the council's handling of his representations.

During our investigation of the complaint the council explained that, having carried out inspections at the quarry, they were satisfied that the operation remained an ancillary operation. As we found no evidence that anything had gone wrong in reaching that decision, we could not challenge this and did not uphold the complaint. Similarly, the council explained that they were not required by any planning condition to monitor the movement of vehicles to and from the quarry.

On the matter of complaints handling, we were satisfied that the council responded to the issues raised, but found that they had failed to handle Mr C's complaint in line with their complaints procedure for which they had apologised. We, therefore, upheld this complaint, but made no recommendation.