Local Government

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) complained about parking restrictions proposed for introduction opposite her home. She also expressed her dissatisfaction at Scottish Borders Council (the Council)'s approach to reducing the impact of heavy goods vehicles entering and leaving commercial premises opposite her home.

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

• (a) introduced excessive parking restrictions on X Street without justifiable reason (not upheld);and
• (b) acted unreasonably when deciding not to introduce protective bollards outside Mrs C's home (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised concern about the handling by Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) of a prior notification by the owners (Mr and Mrs D) of an adjacent field in respect of the development of an agricultural building.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed properly to handle Mr and Mrs D's agricultural prior notification submission, representations made by Mr C and his agent, and Mr C's formal complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review the circumstances of this complaint with a view to issuing instructions to case officers to enable them to expedite agricultural prior notifications and to deal with representations made by neighbours on proposals where permitted development rights are sought;
• (ii) review the content of their website on communication with those making representations on planning applications generally and the particular circumstances pertaining in respect of agricultural prior notification; and
• (iii) review their handling of this particular complaint with a view to preventing a recurrence of their poor complaint handling.

Overview
The complainants (Mr C and Ms C) wanted to alter and extend their home which is a listed mid-terraced building in a conservation area. They sought advice from Midlothian Council (the Council) about the acceptability of their intentions before committing expenditure on making applications for planning and listed building consent. Those applications were refused and appeals to the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals failed. Mr C and Ms C considered that the Council's response to their pre-planning application enquiries had been inadequate.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council's response to Mr C and Ms C's pre-planning application enquiries was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the accessibility of further education for her son (Mr A), who is blind and has learning difficulties. She complained that South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) failed to take into account Mr A's specific needs when deciding on the educational package that they would fund. Mrs C considered that the Council unreasonably dismissed funding a residential placement at Henshaws College, a specialist college in England for blind students, in favour of a less suitable local option.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council acted unreasonably in their decision not to fund a place for Mr A at Henshaws College (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr A for the delay to the introduction of his personal care package and the subsequent gap in his personal development;
• (ii) review their procedures to ensure that service users are provided with details of proposed care packages prior to being asked for their acceptance; and
• (iii) pay Mr A an appropriate sum that adequately reflects the hardship and injustice experienced by the family as a consequence of the considerable delay in putting in place a care package for him.

At the time of publication, the Council have accepted recommendations (i) and (ii) and will act upon them accordingly. They have not accepted recommendation (iii).

The council did subsequently agree to implement the third recommendation.

Overview
The complainants, Mr and Mrs C and Mr D, had objected to the siting of the new Uddingston Grammar School (the New School) when the planning applications were submitted . Following the decision by South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) to approve the applications, they remained concerned about the way the planning conditions were enforced and, in particular, about measures designed to minimise flooding.

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

• (a) alternative sites for the New School were not properly considered (upheld);
• (b) the number and wording of planning conditions were inappropriate (upheld); and
• (c) the monitoring and approval of the conditions relating to flood prevention were not carried out properly (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) remind staff of the need to ensure evaluation tools are not only used but used appropriately;
• (ii) review their policy on standard conditions and consider providing guidance to planning officers about when these should and could be altered;
• (iii) review their policy on the appointment of consultants, in an effort to avoid situations where they and an applicant or developer are using the same advisers and, where this is not possible, ensure this is noted and managed; and
• (iv) apologise to Mr and Mrs C and Mr D for the failings identified in this report.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) had formally complained to Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) about their handling of planning issues relating to the building of two houses on development plots (Plots A and B) adjacent to his property. The Council investigated Mr C's complaint and established that there had been procedural errors on their part in the handling of the planning applications for these plots. In May 2008, the Council put a proposal to Mr C to remedy his complaint. However, Mr C complained that the Council had failed to fulfil their proposal on a remedy. Mr C also raised a number of concerns relating to the Council's handling of a further planning application which was submitted for changes to Plot B. He complained that the Council failed to have proper regard to issues which affected him, of overlooking and privacy.

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

• (a) the Council failed to fulfil their proposal on a remedy for the acknowledged procedural errors associated with the determination of the planning applications on Plots A and B; (upheld) and
• (b) there were shortcomings in the handling of a further planning application for changes to Plot B (upheld)

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) without further delay, make arrangements to pay Mr C the balance of the outstanding legal costs;
• (ii) without delay, take steps to have Mr C's bills independently audited to verify the costs he has claimed he has expended, as a result of the loss of his right to make representations on the planning applications related to Plots A and B and in pursuing his complaint to the Council;
• (iii) take steps to arrange for the planting of mature laurel bushes of at least 3 metres high to add to or replace those which are sited in front of the habitable rooms on the plane of the main gable of the house on Plot A and over a length of 10 metres, the position to be decided by Mr C;
• (iv) take immediate steps to enter into dialogue with the Agents of the owner of Plot B to secure a formal planning consent for the opaque windows or a formal planning agreement and make this conditional on the Council meeting the costs involved; and
• (v) in recognition of their failure to provide a solution through planning permission, which dealt with the problem of overlooking from Plot B, the Council should formally apologise to Mr C for their further shortcomings in the handling of this planning matter.

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

Overview
The complainants (Mr and Ms C) operate a movable food unit (the Unit) in an area (the Area) where The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) issue street traders' licences. When Mr and Ms C applied to renew their annual street trader's licence, they were told that the street trading policy for the Area had changed and that only temporary licences could be issued. Mr and Ms C complained that the Council had changed the street trading policy without consulting them. They also complained that they had been charged non-domestic rates as well as street trader's licences, contrary to street trading legislation, and that the handling of the temporary licence applications was inadequate. Mr and Ms C were also unhappy about the Council's delay in dealing with their complaint.

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

• (a) the Council changed their policy regarding street traders' licensing in the area where Mr and Ms C operate without consulting them (upheld);
• (b) Mr and Ms C were inappropriately charged for both non-domestic rates and street trader's licences (upheld);
• (c) the handling of the temporary licence applications was inadequate (upheld); and
• (d) the Council delayed unreasonably in dealing with the complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that full written consultation is undertaken with those directly affected by any proposed change to street trading policy in future;
• (ii) remind staff involved in drafting reports to Council committees of the importance of ensuring that accurate information is presented;
• (iii) reimburse Mr and Ms C for the cost of the two temporary licence applications and take steps to ensure that information provided to applicants is clear and accurate;
• (iv) ensure that when officers are making a recommendation to the Licensing Sub-Committee to refuse a temporary licence application, the reasons for recommending refusal are clear and consistent;
• (v) ensure that, when a decision is made to refuse a temporary licence application under paragraph 5(3)(d) of Schedule 1 of the 1982 Act, the Council provides an adequate explanation for the 'good reason' which justified the refusal to the applicants;
• (vi) remind staff within the licensing department of the Council's stated timescales for responding to complaints and the importance of keeping the complainant updated if there is to be a delay in responding to a complaint; and
• (vii) apologise to Mr and Ms C for the failings identified in this report.

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

Overview
Ms C complained that in 2007 the respite care that was offered by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for her teenage daughter (Miss A), who has complex special needs, did not meet her daughter's assessed needs.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that, in 2007, the respite care offered by the Council did not reasonably meet the assessed needs of Miss A (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about Fife Council (the Council)'s failure to take effective enforcement action against the owners of a neighbouring disused quarry site. In particular, he was concerned that the Council had failed to ensure that the owners of the site had complied with the conditions of a Planning Enforcement Notice, which they issued in 2004.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take effective enforcement action against unauthorised works at a quarry site next to Mr C's home (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) obtain the services of an independent consultant, obtained from a list provided by the Royal Town Planning Institute, to prepare a report within two months with recommendations on the steps which should be taken by the Council to ensure final compliance with the Enforcement Notice. The Council should consider this report at a meeting of the appropriate Committee within one month of receipt and put in hand the measures it considers appropriate to ensure that works are completed as quickly as possible and within a specified timescale;
• (ii) write to all residents neighbouring the site to apologise for their failures to take effective enforcement action in order to protect their amenity; and
• (iii) carry out a full review of enforcement practice within the Council to ensure that similar situations do not arise again. Such a review should consider the relevant planning circulars and advice.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained about the level of care he and his family received from Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board (the Board). Mr C explained that his seven-year-old son (Child C) has Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and that he also has three other children aged five, three and two. Mr C said that the Board had failed to provide a programme of intervention to meet Child C's needs and that this had caused considerable distress for Child C and his family because of the effects of Child C's disability. Mr C considered that, in addition to the Board's own obligations towards Mr C and his family, it was incumbent on the Board to provide appropriate care to address Mr C and his family's deteriorating health, resulting from what he described as North Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s failure to fulfil their duties towards him and his family. Mr C subsequently complained to the Ombudsman's office about the level of service he and his family received from the Council. He said that the Council's social work services had failed to properly assess the needs of Mr C and his family and provide the appropriate support. Mr C advised that the Council had allocated a number of hours support for Child C and had agreed that, as Mr C had been unable to identify a suitable provider of this support, any unused hours could be 'banked', or carried over from one financial year to the next. Mr C said the Council then went back on this decision and that his son lost all his 'banked hours'. Mr C also raised a number of specific complaints about the Council's social work and education services.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints against the Board which have been investigated are that during the period May 2006 to September 2007:

• (a) the Board failed to provide appropriate care to address Mr C and his family's deteriorating health, resulting from the Council's alleged failure to fulfil their duties towards Mr C and his family (not upheld);
• (b) the Board failed to put in place a programme of intervention to meet Child C's needs (not upheld); and
• (c) the Board failed to provide proper care to alleviate the distress caused to Mr C and his family from the effects of his son's disability (not upheld).

The complaints against the Council which have been investigated are that:

• (d) from March 2005 to May 2008, the Council failed to properly assess Mr C and his family's needs for support from social work services and subsequently provide this support, in accordance with procedure (not upheld);
• (e) the Council failed to inform Mr C that from 6 April 2008 Child C would lose his right to all his 'banked hours' (upheld); and
• (f) the Council failed to allocate Child C a new social worker, after the previous one left in December 2007 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council

• (i) re-instate Child C's unused hours of support for the period 25 October 2005 to 25 April 2008; and
• (ii) take note of both the Ombudsman's Mental Health Adviser (Adviser 1)'s and the Ombudsman's Psychiatric Adviser's comments on multi-agency working in this case, and seek to implement Adviser 1's suggestions at paragraph 128, in particular, the suggestion that stakeholders 'regroup' to re-establish and commit to effective future collaborative working arrangements, including a set of principles upon which future care should be based.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board take note of both the Ombudsman's Mental Health Adviser (Adviser 1)'s and the Ombudsman's Psychiatric Adviser's comments on multi-agency working in this case, and seek to implement Adviser 1's suggestions at paragraph 128, in particular, the suggestion that stakeholders 'regroup' to re-establish and commit to effective future collaborative working arrangements, including a set of principles upon which future care should be based.

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