Local Government

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.

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.