Local Government

Summary

Mrs C raised her concern about the council's handling of a planning application for her housing development, which they approved in 2005. Her garden turned out to have a very steep slope and the rear fence was not sited where it should have been. There was, however, also a dispute, for safety reasons, between the developer and the council over whether the fence should be moved. Mrs C was unhappy that the council had not required the developer to submit plans showing contours or cross sections of the site at the outset. She said that, as a result, she had been left with a rear garden which was unmanageable and unusable. She was also unhappy that the council did not take enforcement action about the breach of planning control relating to the positioning of the fence.

We upheld both of Mrs C's complaints. We criticised the council for their handling of the application. Our planning adviser said that because of the sloping nature of the site, they would have expected the planning officer to obtain details of the proposed ground levels compared to original levels. The council's failure to do so meant that the usable garden area was smaller than shown on the plans. However, during our investigation, we found that the council had as a result of this complaint improved their working practices. They now obtain information about the 'before' and 'after' ground levels as standard practice before granting planning permission, so we made no recommendation. We also took the view that the council should have taken earlier action to follow up on the positioning of the fence.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to the complainant for their handling of this matter.

Summary

Mr C decided to erect a boundary fence at his property, having firstly checked in the housing estate where he lived to see what other fences had been erected. He did not approach the council to check whether planning consent was required before proceeding. The council wrote to Mr C saying that planning consent was required because the fence was more than one metre high. However, they also told him that if he submitted a retrospective planning application (an application relating to work carried out in the past) for the existing fence it was unlikely that this would be approved, because they considered that the current height of the fence affected vehicle and pedestrian safety.

Mr C complained because he believed that this advice effectively denied him the opportunity to apply retrospectively for planning consent. He claimed that there were inconsistencies in the council’s handling of the matter, particularly in the responses he received when he complained that other residents had been allowed to apply for planning permission or that the council had not taken action to require the height of a fence to be reduced. Mr C had also put his property on the market, and complained that the council contacted his selling agents about serving an enforcement notice on his property.

We did not uphold the complaints. After taking advice from one of our planning advisers, we decided that the council’s advice to Mr C was reasonable. We found that it was good practice to tell him what the likely recommendation might be if he submitted a retrospective planning application for the unauthorised fence. We did think that the council could have made it clearer that he could still apply for planning consent, but we also took the view that it was implicit in what they said that there was an opportunity to do so. We also found no evidence of inconsistency in the handling of Mr C’s case when considered against others. Finally, we found that, although the practice of contacting selling agents had not been formalised, the council intended to include this in a procedural note for staff. Our planning adviser said that although he was not familiar with this, it was not in itself a bad practice.

Summary

Mr C is a private landlord. As his tenant had delayed in paying him rent, he asked the council for help in 'safeguarding' the tenant's housing benefit payment by having the benefit paid directly to him. A council can agree this type of request where a tenant is eight weeks or more in arrears of rent.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably ignored information in his letter to them and failed to take appropriate action. He said that the council had not used their powers to recover housing benefit paid to the tenant before the Christmas and New Year holiday period. Mr C said that his tenant left the tenancy early in the New Year, owing him two months rent. After complaining to the council, he remained unhappy and brought the complaint to us.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. This was because our investigation found that his letter said that the tenant was not eight weeks in arrears. We found that the council did authorise a payment to the tenant just before the festive period, but that at this point the tenant was not yet eight weeks in arrears. We found that the payment had not been made in error, and that that the council's actions were reasonable.

Summary

Mrs C lives in a detached house in a town centre near a large garage. The council took over the garage and nearby offices because of road realignment and related traffic management proposals. The council's development services produced a draft development brief for the site which concentrated on the implementation of temporary landscape treatment after demolition and anticipated the redevelopment of the rest of the site. Mrs C was notified of the draft development brief and commented on it. The council's area committee amended the draft and approved the development brief, which then becomes supplementary planning guidance, and a material planning consideration (ie a genuine planning consideration related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest) in determining any future planning application.

Mrs C complained to the council and then to us that, in the process of approving the development brief, the council had not given proper consideration to daylight and sunlight issues and the impact of redevelopment on the amenity of her home.

Our investigation established that Mrs C had been properly notified about, and had commented on, the draft development brief before its approval. At the time she complained to us, no specific planning application had yet been made. As there was no evidence that Mrs C had at this time sustained any injustice or hardship because of the council's actions, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about comments that they said a council officer had made about Mr C. The council initially dealt with the complaint through the statutory social work complaints procedure and upheld it. However, after taking legal advice the council decided that the complaint had been outwith the remit of that procedure and had it investigated by a council officer instead. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the outcome of that investigation.

Our investigation found that the legal advice said that, as Mr and Mrs C's complaint did not relate to the provision of a service, it should not have been considered by the statutory social work review committee. The council were entitled to seek legal advice, and to decide whether to accept all or part of that advice. However, we were critical that they had not obtained it before having the matter considered by the statutory social work review committee. We were also concerned about the length of time that it took before the council officer's investigation was completed, and made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the delay and poor handling of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council inappropriately issued a completion certificate in 1992 for building works carried out at a property he bought some years later. Mr C said the council should not have issued a completion certificate because the work 'as built' differed in several key aspects from the plans which had originally been warranted by the council. Mr C also complained that the council had delayed unreasonably in providing information he had requested.

We found that the building control officer was aware of changes (to the proposed layout and the door and window configuration) when the completion certificate was issued. We concluded that it was for the officer to decide whether the changes meant that a reapplication for warrant was necessary or if an amended drawing or annotation of the existing drawing would be sufficient. There was no evidence that the officer's professional judgement had been flawed, and we did not uphold this complaint. We upheld the complaint about information, as the council had already accepted that there were administrative errors in the handling of Mr C’s request for archived drawings, which had caused delay.

Summary

Mr C and his partner (Ms D) complained that the council removed items from the garden of their council house after the end of their tenancy. The couple claimed that the council did this despite having agreed beforehand that they could collect the items later. They also complained that the council charged them for clearing these items as well as for the removal of kitchen equipment which they said they were told they could leave.

We found that the council's policies were clear, and confirmed that tenants must remove all property, including kitchen equipment such as that left by Mr C and Ms D, when they give up a tenancy. They also said that this was explained to Mr C and Ms D, and provided evidence that the couple had signed an 'end of tenancy' form saying they understood this. We did not uphold Mr C and Ms D's complaint as we found insufficient evidence to conclude that the council told them that they could leave items behind to be collected later.

Summary

Mr C alerted his local council that his neighbour had undertaken development without planning consent. The council investigated and required the neighbour to apply for retrospective planning consent. Mr C took the opportunity to make representations about the development, and the council confirmed that these would form part of the assessment which would be carried out before the application was determined. The council notified Mr C of their decision but he complained that this had been taken without visiting his property to view the development from his perspective and said that the council had not been impartial in their handling of the matter.

During our investigation we took advice from one of our planning advisers. He said that a planning officer can form a judgement about neighbouring properties from visiting the development site. Visiting every property is not practical, bearing in mind that there could be multiple objectors, and the planning adviser agreed that this was a matter for a planner's professional judgement. We did not uphold the complaint, as there was no evidence that Mr C’s representations were not fully considered, and the decision about whether to visit his property was a matter of professional judgement.

Summary

Mr C lived in an old building, which was in a state of disrepair. He and other owners sought the assistance of a local councillor, who arranged for the owners to meet with council officers. The owners initially instructed a firm of surveyors whose report specified the extent of disrepair. With changes in the funding of private sector repairs taking effect from 1 April 2010, the owners agreed with the officers' proposal that the council serve a notice under section 108 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. This would entitle owners to a minimum grant of 50 percent of eligible costs (less recording fee), with the possibility of a higher percentage based on an assessment of income over the previous 52 weeks. Applications would require to be submitted and approved by 31 March 2010. The notice was served in August 2009.

In January 2010, Mr C applied for a grant, and declared that his then partner was resident. The council asked for her income details and Mr C supplied them in mid-February. It turned out that Mr C's partner's income had been such that Mr C's application would attract only the minimum (50 percent) grant. While the application for the grant was still under consideration, Mr C's partner left the household. Mr C told a council grant officer about this when they visited him in late March. Mr C was awarded the minimum 50 percent grant (less recording fee).

Mr C was unhappy, as he felt that with his partner no longer resident, the application should only take his income into account, leading to a higher percentage of grant being awarded to him. Mr C's complaint to us had four aspects: that the council failed to provide him with clarity on his entitlement to repairs grants and how these are calculated; delayed, failed to communicate, and were inefficient in the re-assessment of his grant application; failed to deal with his complaint in accordance with their own complaints procedures; and failed to follow through with their requirement to ensure that plans were in place to adequately maintain the building in future.

We did not uphold the first two complaints. Our investigation found that the council provided adequate general information, and that the assessment takes into account the personal income of those declared to be resident over the year immediately before the date of application. Partners were included in the assessment, as the advice assumed that if two people live together as partners they have a shared interest in the condition of their property and should be assessed at the date of application. We, therefore, did not find that the council had done anything wrong in taking Mr C's former partner's income into account. We did find that the council failed to respond at one stage of their complaint procedure or to pursue with owners a proactive five year maintenance plan. We upheld these complaints and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the information it gives to those seeking financial assistance in respect of private sector repairs; and
• follow up on a particular letter and take any requisite action in reminding owners of the building of action that they expect from them.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy because the name of their property appeared in documents that were part of the council's local development plan (a document that says what type of development should take place where, and identifies areas that should not be developed). They said that no-one asked their permission before doing this, nor were they given any warning beforehand. They were unhappy, because they felt that the council's actions went against legislation and guidance, and told us that they felt this had affected the value of their property.

When our planning adviser looked at the information provided both by Mr and Mrs C and the council, he found that the council had acted satisfactorily and followed appropriate guidance. Our investigation found that the council did not need to obtain Mr and Mrs C's permission, or give them prior warning about this, so we did not uphold the complaint.