Local Government

Overview
The complaint centres on a property and campsite (the Property) situated in a country park (the Park) which is leased from Midlothian Council (the Council) by a young people's organisation (the Organisation). The Property, which lies approximately 800 metres from the Park main entrance, is accessed by a driveway through the Park. The Property is used mostly at weekends and has a small car park adjacent to it. Following a risk assessment conducted on 22 July 2008, the Council informed the Organisation that, due to complaints having been received, they would be enforcing an earlier amendment to the lease. This meant the Organisation would no longer be allowed vehicular use of the driveway. The Organisation's lease was amended again at a later date to allow them vehicular access on Friday evenings when children were being dropped off by parents/carers, but not on Sunday afternoons when they were being collected. The complaint was brought by a spokesperson for the Organisation, referred to as Mrs C. She complained about the Council's handling of the Organisation's complaints, representations and proposed solutions following the restrictions to their vehicular access.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that following an amendment to the Organisation's lease in November 2007, the Council's administrative handling of their proposed solutions, representations and subsequent complaints was poor (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) give the Organisation appropriate consideration in any future decisions concerning the Park and balance their particular needs with the needs of other park users;
• (ii) record complaints received about any incidents in the Park involving vehicles and pedestrians; and
• (iii) provide guidance to the Organisation on how they can improve their control of the use of the driveway.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained that he had received misleading pre-planning application advice from The Highland Council (the Council). Mr C is aggrieved that he spent unnecessary time and substantial costs in preparing and submitting planning applications as a direct result of the advice from the Council.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to deal adequately with the pre-planning application enquiry (upheld).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) inform him when the caveat has been introduced and publicised on their website.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview
In 1995 the complainant (Mr C) obtained planning permission to build a new house on his land. Planning permission was granted subject to the condition that the existing property on the land (a croft house), would revert to use as a byre, with no use as a dwelling taking place after construction of the new house was completed. Mr C says that as a result of this condition he carried out work to convert the croft house to a byre. Thereafter, in October 2004 Mr C applied for planning permission to convert the byre back to a dwelling house. Permission was refused. He applied again in June 2005 when outline planning consent was granted, subject to conditions including significant access improvements. Mr C considered the planning conditions to be onerous, therefore, he decided to sell the building with outline planning consent to upgrade to a dwelling. He considered that the requirement to meet the planning conditions was reflected in the sale price.

When the new owners moved into and commenced work on the property, it became obvious to Mr C that they were not complying with the planning conditions as set in June 2005. Mr C contacted the Council regarding this, however, he was advised that the works he had previously carried out to convert the former croft house to a byre were not sufficient for the Council as planning authority to accept that the use of the building as a house had ceased. Mr C was also advised that under the Building Regulations the building was assessed as being a house, and had never been converted to byre status. Therefore, the new owners were not required to meet the planning conditions set in the outline planning permission of June 2005. In July 2008 Mr C formally complained to the Council that the house had been occupied without compliance with the 2005 conditions, however, at the conclusion of the Council's investigation he remained unhappy with the outcome. In April 2009, he asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matter.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council's handling of the planning situation, in relation to the building adjacent to Mr C's property, was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) consider how best to meet the requirements of the planning conditions set in June 2005 where the need remains; and
• (ii) apologise to Mr C for the inadequate manner in which the planning considerations were handled.

Overview
A number of residents (54) from the South Ayrshire Council (the Council) area raised complaints about the Council's decision to close various facilities (Girvan Swimming Pool, Tarbolton and Dailly Activity Centres, Dalmilling Golf Course, The Gaiety Theatre, Pets' Corner, Public Toilets and Maybole and Troon Registration Offices) without consultation with the public.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to consult the public, both before and after a decision was taken to close a public facility or centre, in accordance with the Council's practice and statutory procedures (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that, in the interests of good practice, the Council ensure that their strategy to communicate and engage with the community incorporates clear directives in relation to consistency in communication and engagement where it is proposed to close a Council facility or centre.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

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.