Local Government

Summary
Mr C's brother was granted planning permission to build holiday cottages on his land in 2006 subject to conditions about the improvement of the access road to the north. Mr C owns the road and did not give permission for the improvements to be made as he did not want traffic from the cottages using the road. Mr C's brother sought planning permission for improvements to the access road to the south in 2007. Since then Mr C's brother has advertised and encouraged cottage users to use the north access.

Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable enforcement action against the breach of the 2006 planning conditions. He also complained that the council acted unreasonably when deciding that the access arrangements were not unsafe.

The council responded that they had considered the effect of the small increase in traffic along with other factors and decided that it did not result in unsafe access arrangements. This was a decision the council were entitled to take. Our planning adviser concluded that the council had given reasonable consideration to the case of enforcement. The adviser commented that the statutory enforcement provisions of the planning acts are discretionary, not mandatory, and Government guidance strongly advises proportionality and reasonableness in taking enforcement action.

In this case, we considered that the relevant 2006 planning condition was a very general one in the interests of road safety and although the condition would have improved accessibility to the cottages, the traffic using the north access did not exacerbate the existing situation and did not result in less safe arrangements.

Summary
Mrs C hurt herself after falling on a loose paving stone. She made a claim against the council's insurers but they denied liability on the grounds that the pavement had been inspected two days prior when no fault was identified. Mrs C complained about this decision. In response, the council explained that as they had an inspection process in place which complied with national guidelines which they had followed in this case, they could not uphold her complaint. Unsatisfied with their response, Mrs C approached our office.

We cannot consider the question of liability, we can only review whether or not the council followed their own procedures and whether these procedures are, in themselves, appropriate. Having reviewed the evidence in this case, it was clear that the council had the right procedures in place and that they had followed them properly. As a result, and as they could demonstrate that they inspected the site of the accident two days before it took place, and found no defect, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mrs C is an owner/occupier in a tenement building which is partially private but in which the council still has an interest. She was dissatisfied with the cost of mutual repairs (stair entry door) which the council arranged and she claimed that all the works she was billed for had not been undertaken. When Mrs C received a reduced bill, she claimed that the council failed to explain the reason for the reduction.

Mrs C complained that the council's handling of the matter, particularly that they took an excessively long time to investigate. Our investigation established that the council had arranged for the repairs to be undertaken without consulting with the other owners because it was deemed to be emergency work, necessitating immediate action in the interests of residents' safety.

The council informed us that visits were undertaken but it was clear that there had been a delay in responding to Mrs C's complaint, and it was not handled appropriately under the terms of their complaints procedure. We upheld the complaint about failings in the council's complaints handling. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint that the council had not explained the reason for the reduction in the repairs bill because the evidence confirmed that a satisfactory explanation was given.

Recommendation
We recommended that the council:
• issue a formal apology from the Chief Executive to the complainant in recognition of the council's shortcomings in the handling of her complaint under their complaints procedure.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's refusal to renew his zone 2 parking permit in February 2011 despite him having been issued with one on an annual basis since purchasing his property in 1986. Mr C was unhappy that the council issued his neighbour with a zone 2 permit and that there was no clear advice, consultation or notice from the council that they were implementing the change in practice.

We established that the council had been incorrectly issuing Mr C with a zone 2 permit for around 25 years instead of a zone 6 permit to which he was entitled under the applicable Traffic Regulation Order. Therefore, we concluded that the council acted reasonably and appropriately when informing Mr C that he was not entitled to a zone 2 permit. We also considered that there was insufficient evidence to support that the council would have been in a position to consult with Mr C or his neighbours prior to implementing the change in practice. This is because the problem with Mr C's permit was identified when he attempted to renew his permit online after a new IT system had been implemented.

Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, in recognition that he had received a zone 2 permit for the past 25 years and that he wanted to continue with this practice, the council agreed to continue issuing him with a zone 2 permit until amendments have been made to the Traffic Regulation Order.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• remind all staff dealing with permit parking applications to ensure that the correct permits are issued in accordance with the 1973 Order; and
• issue Mr C with a zone 2 permit until the proposed amendments to the 1973 Order have gone through the relevant process.
 

Summary
Mr and Mrs C reside within a B listed building which had been divided into four flats. They complained that the council failed to properly handle a number of planning applications submitted in relation to one of the flats within the listed building. In particular, they complained that the applicant had submitted what they regarded as a less contentious application followed immediately by a variation; that the council had accepted a report on the water supply which had been prepared by the applicant's agent and that the council unreasonably accepted plans which were inaccurate.

Our investigation found that the council had considered the points Mr and Mrs C had made in their letters of objection about the planning applications and that there was no evidence of fault on the part of the council in the processing of the applications. They had also acted reasonably in accepting a report prepared by the applicant's agent. It was normal practice for information to be submitted by a suitably qualified professional to provide 'independent' advice, notwithstanding that he/she was appointed by the applicant. Any report would be scrutinised by the council during consideration of the application. We also found that the accuracy of the plans had been considered during consideration of the application.

As we did not find evidence that the council had failed to follow the proper processes and procedures in their handling of the applications we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary
Mr C's daughter was a candidate for the Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA) Higher physics examination in May 2010.

In early 2010, she obtained a B grade pass in the school’s preliminary physics examination and had targeted the same grade in the final Higher examination.

In the event, Mr C’s daughter attained a C grade pass in the Higher examination, and the school submitted an appeal on behalf of Mr C’s daughter and another student in August 2010. Both appeals were dismissed and the results stood. In returning the appeals, the SQA provided two reasons for their decision, both relating to the validity of the school’s preliminary examination.

Mr C submitted subsequent complaints against the SQA and the council (as education authority).

He complained that the council failed to provide him with a clear explanation of the reasons why the Higher physics preliminary examination in 2010 did not meet the SQA's criteria. In response, the council advised that they considered that the school preliminary examination was adequately moderated and did not accept the SQA’s explanation. The investigation considered that the council were entitled to take that view and the complaint was not upheld.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about a number of issues relating to the development of a car wash and snack bar site next to his home and what he considered the council's failure to take effective enforcement action against the site operators. He also raised a complaint about a planning application he had submitted for his own property. As Mr C had not raised the complaints about his own planning application with the council, we were unable to investigate them at this time.

We were able to consider Mr C’s complaints about the council's failure to take effective enforcement action. We found that it was clear that the developer of the neighbouring site was operating a car wash and snack bar without planning consent and that this use was not authorised in planning terms. However, on consideration of the evidence it became clear that the council were working actively to ensure that the developer applied for the appropriate consents for the business.

Whilst Mr C wanted the council to take immediate enforcement action, Government guidance explains that enforcement action should only be taken proportionately and when it is clear that the matter cannot be resolved through negotiation.

As we did not find evidence that the council had failed to consider these matters appropriately, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.
 

Summary
Mr and Mrs C complained about an alleged breach of planning condition in relation to the screening of a landfill site and that they have been left with an open view of the site.

During the investigation we found that a condition attached to the planning consent required screening of the landfill site to be provided at all times.

We found that the council had investigated the matter but had decided, given the work carried out to address the issue of screening, that no further enforcement action would be taken. Although this was a discretionary decision for the council to take, we were concerned that the required screening had been absent for a number of years which amounted to a service failure.

Recommendations
We recommended that the council:
• apologise for the failure to provide screening of the landfill site; and
• consider whether there are any actions they could reasonably take to improve the current situation.

Summary
Mrs C complained that the council did not take her concerns appropriately into account when planning Core Paths (a system of public access paths) in the area she lives and that she was not given appropriate information about the process. She appealed to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) and was concerned about the impartiality of the DPEA’s conclusions in relation to her objections. Mrs C complained that there were long delays in the council responding to her letters during the complaints procedure.

Having looked at the evidence provided by the council, we concluded that Mrs C's concerns had been appropriately taken into consideration, and that she had been given advice and relevant information throughout every stage of the Core Paths planning process. In addition, we considered that there was insufficient evidence to support that the council had delayed in responding to Mrs C complaint and did not uphold the complaints.

Summary
Mr C complained that a development on land close to his home had been carried out without planning permission and that the council failed to take any action to resolve matter. Mr C also said that he and his neighbours had regularly complained about noise, smells and unauthorised dumping, and that trees had been cut down at the site without planning permission. Mr C said that this was to the detriment of an area which was considered to be of great landscape value. He also felt that that the council failed to take his complaints seriously and try to sort things out.

Our investigation found that unauthorised work had been carried out but that the council had taken action to resolve the issue by requiring a retrospective planning application. While Mr C was not content with the steps taken by the council, we found their approach was appropriate in the circumstances.

The investigation also found that the council had investigated the noise complaints and pursued them with the tenant of the property concerned, and that they found no evidence of a noise issue.