Local Government

Summary

Mr C owns a holiday home, and there are two other holiday homes close by. The drainage systems for these premises empty into a Buchan trap (a device in a domestic sewer pipe to prevent vermin entering the pipe) inside Mr C's garden. If this becomes blocked, sewage floods into Mr C's garden. This happened in February 2007 and July 2011. Mr C complained that when the other properties were renovated, the council issued a building warrant (the legal permission to commence building work) failing to take into account his concerns about the drainage system. He also said that when he reported incidents to the council, they did not take action. He believed the drainage system should never have been approved and in view of his problems, the council should require his neighbour to change their system.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The council confirmed that when the neighbouring houses were renovated they assessed and tested the drainage systems as part of the building warrant process, and found them to be satisfactory. They were, therefore, obliged to grant the warrant. The problem with the drains appeared to be not their design, but misuse by tenants of the holiday homes, which caused blockages. The council had also said they would look into any incidents that Mr C brought to their attention, and we found evidence that they did this. However, their records showed that most recently Mr C had said that he preferred to resolve matters amicably with his neighbour. Taking this into account, the council agreed not to take any action, and Mr C had not contacted them since.

Finally, Mr C said he thought the council should have made his neighbour change the drains. We found evidence that the neighbour had said they would do so if there were problems, and that their solicitor had also offered this but Mr C and his wife had refused access. In the circumstances, the council took the view that as no nuisance had been established, it was not for them to contact the neighbour on his behalf. We considered this appropriate.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy when the council decided to install electric dry panel heaters in his property when his heating system failed. In particular, he was dissatisfied that he was not given the opportunity to refuse this heating system, as he said that other types of heating were available. He also complained that he was given inaccurate information about the running costs for the new system.

Our investigation found that, while the council accepted that it was good practice to consult, when Mr C's heating system failed they found that there were no other viable options, so they had not discussed the matter with him. We also found no evidence that the council had provided inaccurate information to Mr C.

Summary

In the early 1990's Mr and Mrs C converted rural steading buildings to provide two houses. These are across the road from the original farmhouse, which Mr and Mrs C also own. The land surrounding all three buildings is the property of a company, which employs agents to manage the land for them. The local plan for the area originally said that for planning purposes there should be a presumption against further development except for agricultural or family purposes, but planning policy later changed, as did the council's planning guidance.

In 2009, the company decided that they wanted to build houses on the land. After correspondence about what this might involve, pre-planning discussions and consultations, the managing agents withdrew an initial planning application. They applied instead for permission to build two single houses, one beside the steading and one beside the farmhouse. Council planning officers approved the application to build beside the steading, but refused the second application. It was, however, later approved with conditions, because the local planning review board overturned the officers' decision, despite objections from Mr and Mrs C and others.

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council failed to take local planning policies appropriately into account; adopted an inconsistent approach to the applications; kept inadequate records; and made misleading or inaccurate statements. We did not uphold any of their complaints, however, as our investigation did not find evidence that anything had gone wrong in taking these decisions. The planning policy background was complex, but we found that the council had taken all appropriate matters into consideration when amending their planning guidance and that planning officers were entitled to discuss the matters with the agents, and acted consistently when doing so. We also found that the complaint about inadequate records related to a temporary difference between the paper file and electronic information, and the allegation of misleading or inaccurate statements centred on a difference of view between Mr and Mrs C and the council about how to describe the number of houses on their property.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of an application for a change of use of local commercial premises. Mrs C said that neighbour notification was not carried out correctly, which she believed meant that she and her co-complainants missed a chance to have the planning application decided by committee, and to speak to that committee. Mrs C complained that relevant issues, such as the residential nature of the area and public safety, were not taken into account when assessing the application. She also said that there was delay in responding to her and her co-complainants’ representations about the planning application and in telling them of the outcome.

We found no evidence that the neighbour notification procedures were faulty. We also did not uphold the complaint that there was a failure to take account of relevant issues. There was no evidence to suggest that there had been a failure to consider issues which were material to the case when assessing the planning application, or that Mrs C was not given an explanation when she complained. We also saw no evidence that Mrs C’s contact with the council was subject to delay when they responded but we upheld her complaint that she was not notified of the decision. However, as the council had apologised to her for this and, in response to our investigation, advised us that they had looked at why this happened and that a similar error should not happen again, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C submitted an application to erect a wind turbine. After he submitted the application, an airport objected on the basis that the wind turbine would create clutter on their radar displays. Mr C complained that the council did not give him reasonable advice before he submitted the application. He said that the airport told him that the council had a map of the areas where the airport would object to development. He said that the council had not told him of the likelihood of the application being rejected on this basis. He asked that the council refund his application fee.

Our investigation found that Mr C had not requested pre-application advice before submitting his application. There was no evidence that he had discussed the application with a planning officer. Although he had discussed the application with an administration assistant at the council before it was accepted as valid, this was about some further information that was required. We also found that the map used by the council was to assess whether a particular airport or similar body should be consulted about a planning application. The map should not be used to assess or pre-empt what any response to such a consultation might be.

We found that the council had acted reasonably in this case. We did not uphold the complaint and did not recommend that the council refund Mr C’s application fee.

Summary

Mr C complained that the condition of the footpath beside his home meant that he had difficulty in accessing his driveway. After he contacted the council about this, he had spoken to two workers marking up the damaged areas on the footpath. They suggested that he could expect it to be fixed within three weeks. When this did not happen he complained.

The council accepted that the footpath was sub-standard but explained that, for budgetary reasons, they had to prioritise more significant repairs. As the condition of the footpath was not poor enough to cause any safety risk, and they were satisfied that Mr C could access his home from the public road, they could not in fact give him a time-frame in which the repairs would be carried out. Mr C also complained about his telephone conversation with a council employee who terminated the call.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council complied with their responsibilities in terms of roads maintenance. We considered it reasonable for them to prioritise repairs, which was a decision they were entitled to take. On the matter of the telephone call, as we did not have evidence to conclude that the call was handled inappropriately, we could not uphold this element of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C moved into a house in a rural location. One plot in a development next to his home was not developed at the time, and was the subject of two planning consents in 2006 for a change in house type. In early 2011 another application was made, this time to build a two storey house. The applicant described this as a modification of one of the 2006 consents, and the council described it this way when notifying neighbours of the application.

Mr C complained that the information provided by the council, which said that the application was for the modification of a previous planning consent granted in May 2006, was incorrect; that the council’s response to his complaint contained inaccurate information; and that there had been a fault in the timing of advice given to the convener of the committee which determined the 2011 application.

We took advice from our planning adviser. The adviser said that the description of the proposal was chosen by the applicant. He said that 'modification of a previous consent' no longer existed and officers had corrected the description to 'an application for full planning consent'. Due to the nature of the minute taking, we could not use the information in them to decide if there was inaccurate information, but we noted that there did not appear to be any evidence that Mr C was disadvantaged as a result of this. The third issue had arisen as a result of decisions on how minutes should be taken and was not specific to the complaint.

Summary

Mr C moved into a house in a rural location. One plot in a development next to his home was not developed at the time, and was the subject of two planning consents in 2006 for a change in house type. In early 2011 another application was made, this time to build a two storey house. The applicant described this as a modification of one of the 2006 consents, and the council described it this way when notifying neighbours of the application.

Mr C was unhappy with the council's actions in respect of his representations about the applications and their handling of the 2011 application. He complained that because a planning officer did not return his calls he was disadvantaged when making representations, and that the officer's report to committee did not say that the owners' association had also made representations. He also said that it was not reported to the committee that work had started on the site, and felt that this should have invalidated the 2011 application from being a modification of a previous consent.

We did not uphold his complaints. The council's standard acknowledgement said that those making objections could obtain information on line. We also found that the report had mentioned the representations received and these were available for members to consult. On the third complaint, our planning adviser took the view, which we accepted, that the start of work on site before the committee meeting did not invalidate the 2011 application.

Summary

Mr C acts as guardian and carer for his disabled adult son. He complained that the council did not properly investigate a complaint that he made on behalf of his son. He also said that they did not provide advice about the social work complaints procedure, by failing to tell him that he could take the matter on to a complaints review committee.

We found that the council's complaints procedure was quite clear about the steps that should be taken. Our investigation, however, identified several areas where this process was not followed. These included delay in appointing an investigating officer, failure to interview Mr C, and providing him with details of the procedure only after they had sent him their decision on his complaint.

We did not uphold the second complaint, as it was clear that Mr C was given detailed information about the next stage of the process, and an extension of the period to request a review.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council dealt with a planning application for a proposed development of social housing near his home. He felt the council had not consulted with the community appropriately, had failed to take into account objections properly, and had not given reasonable justification for the choice of site.

We found that the council dealt with the application appropriately and in accordance with planning policy. The planning report about the site had considered all objections and provided reasoned responses. We noted there had been an initial error with the documentation provided during neighbour notification, but that this had been rectified. In any event the council had given reasonable opportunity for representations to be made and heard during consultation events and during a planning committee meeting. We also found that, although the council were not required to justify choosing this specific site over others, they had nonetheless provided their reasoning for this choice of site to the community. We also did not uphold the complaint that construction started before planning condition pre-requisites were met, as we found evidence to the contrary. We did, however, uphold Mr C's complaint about the way the council handled his complaints, as we found the final response was unreasonably delayed and did not address any of the points on which Mr C had sought responses.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in the manner in which they dealt with his complaint; and
• review their complaints handling procedure to ensure full responses are sent to complainants.