Local Government

Summary
The council considered an 'in principle' application to build a house on land in a former coal mining area and approved it, subject to conditions. Mr C, whose property borders the application site, was concerned that reports about the ground stability of the site were not available on the council's planning portal prior to the decision being made and said that the council's actions have not and will not adequately assess this. A detailed application for the development was considered and approved while we were investigating these complaints. We sought the opinion of our planning adviser and he told us that while mineral stability is a material planning consideration, there is no clear guidance on how it should be considered or whether it requires to be considered in relation to 'in principle' applications. We did not uphold the complaints because there was no evidence that the council were required to make the reports available on the planning portal and we considered that the council's consideration of the ground stability issues had been adequate for an 'in principle' application.
 

Summary
Mr C was unhappy that due to iillegal and inconsiderate parking near his home, he was unable to safely use his driveway and felt that the council had disregarded his right to do so. He complained that they had failed to ensure that he could enter and exit his driveway, and failed to paint yellow lines or a 'keep clear' sign on the road. We found that the council had held a meeting with Mr C about his complaint and had in fact since refurbished an existing yellow line across his driveway and painted a 'keep clear' sign on the road, although there had been a delay in doing so. The council had then told Mr C that any complaints about him being blocked in by motorists parking across his driveway should be referred to the police. We took the view that the council had taken appropriate action in the circumstances.
 

Summary
Mr C made a number of complaints about the council's handling of planning applications for an agricultural shed and house close to his home. We found that the council failed to follow their standard procedure that they do not display responses from internal consultees on their website until after an application is determined. Due to an internal error, the website displayed the response from the roads officer, but did not initially display responses from the environmental health manager. We upheld this complaint. However, we did not uphold a number of other complaints Mr C made about the handling of the applications and about the council's investigation into the points that he raised about this, as we generally found their actions to be reasonable. We did, however, make recommendations where relevant.

Recommendations
We recommend that Perth and Kinross Council:
• consider whether they should log all relevant consultation documents on their website as soon as they are received; and
• apologise to Mr C for the delay in responding to his complaint to the Chief Executive and for failing to keep him updated.

Summary
Mrs C complained that the council failed to correctly assess the planning application for an extension to a neighbour's property, because the planning officer did not view the site from Mrs C’s property. She also complained that the planning officer did not have proper regard in his assessment to the measurements of the proposed extension, and that overdevelopment of the site has affected her privacy and amenity. We viewed the council's files and established that, although the planning officer did refuse to revisit the site to see it from Mrs C’s property, they had previously viewed the site and taken photographs. It was the council's practice for planning officers to decide the number of visits required before coming to a decision. We did not uphold the complaint, as there was no evidence that the assessment of the plannning proposal was not undertaken properly, and consideration was given to the representations made by objectors to the proposal.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to carry out effective risk assessments when deciding to house a vulnerable adult in accommodation next door to his mother-in-law, Mrs A. He was of the view that the council also failed to deal with reports of anti-social behaviour by their tenant and by visitors to his home. Mr C also said that the council failed to provide any support to Mrs A following a fire at the neighbour's home and also failed to offer to pay for her insurance excess. Following our examination of the case we did not find evidence to suggest that the council failed to carry out appropriate risk assessments or that the neighbour had been housed in unsuitable accommodation. We also did not uphold the complaint that the council failed to investigate the concerns about anti-social behaviour. We found that the council had explained how Mrs A could make a claim to the council's insurers. We did, however, find that the council failed to offer any support to her after the fire. We considered that providing some support would have been appropriate under the circumstances and we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We recommended that the council apologise to Mrs A for this failing and also consider whether there is a need to introduce a procedure to deal with incidents such as this and to address the potential needs of elderly neighbours.

Recommendations
We recommend that North Ayrshire Council:
• provide a further apology to Mrs A for their failure to provide her with support; and
• consider whether there is a need to introduce a procedure to deal with incidents such as this and to address the potential needs of elderly neighbours.

Summary
Mr C complained about various aspects of how a Valuation Board handled the banding of his property for council tax purposes. We could not consider some of his complaints because the council tax banding legislation gives a wide degree of discretion to the assessor. The assessor has the discretion to decide what the council tax band of a property will be and also what to take into account (or not take into account) in reaching that decision. In the absence of evidence of administrative error, we are unable to question the banding decision. Mr C also complained that the board failed to provide him with information about how they arrived at their decision that his banding was correct. Although Mr C did not agree with the explanation which had been given, and felt that it was not detailed enough, there was evidence that the board had given him a suitable explanation for their decision.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council had effectively recommended a tradesperson by giving him a trader's contact details. He was also concerned about the way the council handled his subsequent complaint. When we investigated this, the council said that they did not have a written policy on recommendations, as their standard practice was that they did not make these. We decided that this position was in fact undermined when they provided Mr C with contact details for a particular trader. Whether the council chose to refer to this as a 'recommendation' or not, we took the view that members of the public are likely to consider a trader suggested by an authoritative body such as the council as, effectively, having been recommended. On the complaint handling, we found that the council suitably investigated Mr C's concerns about his consumer complaint. However, they did not look at his concerns about the 'recommendation'. Instead they took the view that a complaint would only be accepted where 'there is evidence of service failure or maladministration on the part of the council'. We found that this was not supported by their complaints process. The council should have been able to investigate and respond to his concerns that their consumer adviser provided him with the trader's contact details.

Summary
In November 2010 those in the area of the street on which Mr C's business is situated was advised that works to improve the appearance of the street would begin in a few days. Mr C was concerned that he had not been consulted on these works and raised this issue with the council via several councillors. An initial response from the council said that they had consulted in 2009 and subsequent responses stated that consultation had been undertaken in February 2010. Mr C remained dissatisfied at the end of the council's complaints process and raised his complaint with us. He also said that the council had provided conflicting information about when consultation had occurred and was unhappy with the time that it had taken for him to receive responses to his correspondence.

Upon investigation we could see no evidence that the council had not consulted properly on the works. The council also explained that the seeming discrepancy in dates had been a genuine error. We did not consider the delays in Mr C receiving responses to his correspondence to be the fault of the council.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to respond to his written complaint about a road layout. Our investigation found that the council had contacted Mr C to discuss his concerns. The officer who spoke to him said the matter would be dealt with the following week. Mr C said he was happy with this and the council closed their complaint file. When we looked at the correspondence, however, it became clear that as a result of the discussion the officer thought that Mr C was complaining about problems in a different place. The officer, therefore, arranged for work to be carried out in an area that was not mentioned in Mr C's original letter. As Mr C had said during the discussion that he was happy the work was going to be done, the complaint was closed without replying to the original point. We, therefore, found that the council had not answered Mr C's complaint. We also noted that it would have, in any case, been appropriate to respond in writing to complete matters. Had this been done it is possible that the misunderstanding could have been resolved then. As a result of this we upheld the complaint and recommended that the council respond to the points raised in his letter. The council have now done so.

Summary
Mrs C complained that a council officer conducted office bearer elections for a community council outwith the prescribed times detailed in the council's 'Scheme for the Establishment of Community Councils' and the community council's constitution. The council said that the terms of the scheme were not clear, and that their area manager had taken appropriate advice before reaching a decision. Mrs C argued that they were unclear and that the elections were invalid. Our investigation found that a reasonable case could made for either of these points of view, and that, therefore the council’s actions were not unreasonable. However, we also noted that the council had explained that they intended to carry out a review of the scheme and the constitution of the community council to seek to improve clarity and we welcomed this decision.