Local Government

  • Case ref:
    201704876
  • Date:
    December 2018
  • Body:
    Argyll and Bute Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    handling of application (complaints by opponents)

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns about the council's handling of a planning application. In particular, that the council had unreasonably failed to carry out an appropriate assessment of the impact of the new development on his property. He also complained that the council had failed to take enforcement action in relation to an alleged breach of planning control.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We considered that the assessment of the planning application in relation to the impact on Mr C's property, in terms of privacy and overlooking, was unreasonable and we upheld this aspect of his complaint. However, in making recommendations to the council in light of this finding we noted that they had, prior to our investigation, taken action to suggest to the applicant that additional screening be installed to address Mr C's concerns about overlooking.

In reference to enforcement action we were satisfied that the council had take action in line with their monitoring and enforcement charter and we found no failings. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to Mr C for failing to carry out an appropriate assessment of the impact of the development on Mr C's property. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

  • All representations made against a planning application should be taken into account in compiling the report.
  • A thorough assessment of proposals against the development plan policies and supplementary guidance should be carried out.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201706717
  • Date:
    December 2018
  • Body:
    Angus Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    wayleaves / rights of access / feu duties / servitudes

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to reasonably uphold access rights to a field. Mr C was of the view that the landowner had unreasonably locked the gate without providing a stock gate or a stile. Mr C noted that the public had accessed the field for over 20 years. The council contacted the landowner, who confirmed that there was now livestock in the field and that the gate had to be locked to keep the animals in.

The council cited the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code as guiding parameters for their decision not to take enforcement action against the landowner for locking the gate. We found that the council had given due time and consideration to all of the issues brought before them, and had assessed a number of different sources of evidence. The council have stated that they expect the gate to be unlocked at times when no livestock are in the field. We confirmed that it is not for this office to give a definitive intepretation of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, or the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. We noted that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 sets out in section 28 that it is for a Sheriff to determine the existence and extent of access rights. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

While Mr C did not ask us to investigate how the council handled his complaint, during our investigation we observed that the complaints handling fell below the standard that we would expect. We have therefore made a recommendation that the council apologise to Mr C for this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to Mr C for the unacceptable delay in responding to his complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Related reading

  • Case ref:
    201707165
  • Date:
    December 2018
  • Body:
    Aberdeen City Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    neighbour disputes and anti-social behaviour

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to investigate and act on her reports of antisocial behaviour in her building.

We found that Ms C phoned the council a number of times to report what she felt to be antisocial behaviour relating to a neighbour. The council gave Ms C advice on what to do about reporting specific incidents of antisocial behaviour when they were actually happening. When Ms C escalated her concerns, the council investigated her reports of antisocial behaviour by discussing the situation with Ms C, gathering evidence from other relevant parties, and assessing that evidence to determine that, in the council's view, there was no antisocial behaviour. While Ms C disagreed with that view, her disagreement was not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing by the council.

Ms C also complained about the council's handling of her complaint. We found that the council's handling of her complaint was in keeping with their complaints handling procedure, as they investigated and responded to the key points of her complaint.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Related reading

  • Report no:
    201100845
  • Date:
    November 2012
  • Body:
    The Highland Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

Overview
The complainant (Mr C)'s son (Mr A) was a pupil at a school in the Highland Council (the Council)'s area. Mr A was unable to sit his Higher Physics examination due to a family bereavement. Assurances were given by his school (the School) that he would be awarded a grade based on his preliminary examination results. However, the evidence provided by the School in support of Mr A's performance did not comply with the requirements of the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) and Mr A was awarded a lower grade. Mr C complained that the School did not use a prelim paper of the required standard and that they did not provide adequate evidence to the SQA in support of the subsequent appeal of Mr A's Higher Physics Result. Mr C also complained about the Council's handling of enquiries and complaints from him and his wife (Mrs C).

 
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
  • (a)  the School did not use a paper of the required standard in conducting a prelim examination for Higher Physics in early 2010 (upheld);
  • (b)  the School's submission of evidence of Mr A's performance in Higher Physics to the SQA in 2010 was not reasonable (upheld); and
  • (c)  the Council did not respond reasonably to Mr and Mrs C's enquiries and complaints (upheld).
 
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
(i)         
ensure that the School develops a procedure for checking all prelim examination papers for compliance with SQA standards;
(ii)        
work with the SQA to increase their understanding of the SQA's standards and how SQA staff assess the suitability of prelim papers;
(iii)       
conduct a review of the types of evidence that will be accepted by the SQA in support of appeals and absentee assessments;
(iv)       
ensure that the SQA's comments on the marking of Mr A's prelim examination have been fed back to the Principal Teacher concerned; and
(v)        
issue a formal written apology to Mr A for the failings highlighted in this report.
 
The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Related reading

  • Report no:
    201101316
  • Date:
    November 2012
  • Body:
    North Lanarkshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about North Lanarkshire Council (the Council)'s failure to take effective enforcement action against the developer of a number of houses, including the house she owns. In particular, she was concerned that, over a number of years, the Council had failed to ensure that the developer of the site complied with the conditions attached to a planning consent granted in 2002.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take reasonable and timely enforcement action against the developer responsible for building Mrs C's home, to address breaches in planning conditions (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that:

  • (i) in the event of the owners of the properties covered by the planning conditions themselves taking forward a scheme to carry out the works required, to upgrade the road under planning conditions 7 and 8 (to ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access), the Council meet the reasonable costs associated with the works; and
  • (ii) the Council apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified in their handling of the enforcement action, including their failure to clarify the position with regard to the communal driveway.

 

Ombudsman's Comment
Recommendation (i) cannot be an open ended commitment for the Authority. I consider that the works should be instructed within a period of three years from the date of this report.

Related reading

  • Report no:
    201101997
  • Date:
    August 2012
  • Body:
    Glasgow City Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained about Glasgow City Council (the Council)'s handling of financial assessments carried out for his parents, both of whom required residential care. Mr C's complaint was considered by a Social Work Complaints Review Committee. However, they declined to comment on the substantive part of his complaint. Mr C complained that there was no mechanism for appealing the original decision which he felt was made improperly. He also raised concerns about the Council's communication.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

  • (a) the Council unreasonably failed to properly apply the Charging for Residential Accommodation Guidelines rules in respect of both Mr C's mother's and father's circumstances (not upheld);
  • (b) the Council unreasonably excluded the substantive decisions on financial assessments and interpretation of Charging for Residential Accommodation Guidelines from the remit of the Complaints Review Committee (upheld);
  • (c) the Council unreasonably failed to inform Mr C that the substantive element of his complaint would not be considered by the Complaints Review Committee, despite his making it clear that that was what he wanted to be addressed (upheld);
  • (d) given that the Complaints Review Committee excluded the matters, the Council has unreasonably failed to put in place a proper review or complaints process for Social Work Services' substantive decisions on financial assessments and interpretation of Charging for Residential Accommodation Guidelines (upheld); and
  • (e) following the Complaints Review Committee which upheld Mr C's complaint about failures of communication, the Council continued to demonstrate significant failures in communication (upheld).

 

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

  • (i) take steps to inform any complainants progressing to review by a CRC of the extent of the CRC's remit and powers;
  • (ii) ensure that CRC members have appropriate training and access to expert advice to deal with all matters presented to them;
  • (iii) arrange for Mrs A's financial assessment to be independently reviewed; and
  • (iv) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report.

Related reading

  • Report no:
    200904711
  • Date:
    August 2011
  • Body:
    Scottish Borders Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

Overview
The complainants, a firm of solicitors (Firm C), raised a number of concerns on behalf of its clients, a housing developer (Firm A), about the handling by Scottish Borders Council (the Council) of a planning application submitted for the development of a new secondary school.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not observe appropriate planning procedures with regard to the new school contained in the application and, in particular, to notify interested parties of significant changes (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

  • (i) apologise for the failings identified.

Related reading

  • Report no:
    201003274
  • Date:
    August 2011
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s handling of a planning application for the erection of a two-storey extension at her neighbour's property.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to follow due process prior to planning permission being granted for the erection of a two-storey extension at Mrs C's neighbour's property (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

  • (i) refer the application to committee to consider whether it would be appropriate to make a revocation order, in terms of the use and development of the land;
  • (ii) review the email system currently in place in the planning team to ensure that overloading of inboxes does not result in lost emails on planning applications;
  • (iii) feed back my decision on this case to the planning team; and
  • (iv) apologise to Mrs C for failing to investigate her complaint properly and for failing to ensure that a local Councillor's request was processed correctly.

 

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Related reading

  • Report no:
    201102194
  • Date:
    July 2012
  • Body:
    South Lanarkshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) bought a recently constructed property in a small rural development. He and other residents experienced a problem with low water pressure in the water supply to their homes. He considered that to be as a result of South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) not taking appropriate action when the developer informed them of a change in source of the water supply a year after planning consent was granted.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council, in dealing with the planning application for the development, failed to ensure that the developer provided an adequate water supply to the site (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

  • (i) apologise for their failure to take appropriate action in respect of the letter of 4 September 2006 from the developer; and
  • (ii) consider, in the light of the circumstances detailed in this report, whether they should contribute to the costs incurred in securing a satisfactory water supply.

Related reading

  • Report no:
    201003487
  • Date:
    May 2012
  • Body:
    Dumfries and Galloway Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

Overview
The complainants, a firm of solicitors (Firm C), brought a complaint to my office on behalf of a number of clients. The complaint concerned the way in which Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) had reached its decision to identify a particular location as suitable for inclusion in the list of Small Building Groups suitable for limited housing development.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

  • (a) failed to act in a consistent and fair manner in assessing the criteria for identifying suitable locations (upheld);
  • (b) failed to produce adequate reasoned justification for moving a location from the unsuitable list to the suitable list and, in doing so, ignored advice in the committee reports (upheld);
  • (c) did not adhere to the governance advice provided by Council officers (not upheld);
  • (d) failed to adequately advise the public of the proposed changes (not upheld);
  • (e) failed to follow the established procedure of considering each location on its merits in favour of a 'block group' consideration (not upheld); and
  • (f) failed to handle the complaint adequately (upheld).

 

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

  • (i) review the manner in which the case was handled to ensure public confidence in public administration and the planning system; and
  • (ii) issue a full and clear apology to Firm C for the failings identified in the handling of the complaint.

 

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Related reading

Subscribe to Local Government