Local Government

Overview
The complainants (Mr and Mrs C), raised a number of issues relating to South Lanarkshire Council (the Council)?s handling of a planning application for the formation of a first floor extension above an existing garage and the erection of a one and a half storey extension to the rear of a neighbouring property.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:
(a) failed to consider properly objections relevant to the application (not upheld);
(b) included misleading and incorrect information in their report to the planning committee (not upheld);
(c) granted planning permission against relevant planning policies (not upheld);
(d) failed to apply Building Research Establishment guidance properly in relation to sunlight (not upheld);
(e) failed to calculate correctly sunlight availability in relation to Mr and Mrs C?s property (not upheld);
(f) failed to allow Mr C to give personal statements to the planning committee (not upheld); and
(g) failed to handle Mr and Mrs C?s formal complaint in line with the Council?s complaints procedure (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the way in which Falkirk Council (the Council) had dealt with the development of land to the rear of his home and, in particular, the development of the nearest plot (the Plot). He also complained that the Council had failed to respond in a timely manner to his correspondence.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:
(a) in considering the planning application for the Plot and in treating requests for variations in the finished floor and ground level as non-material, failed to have proper regard to the effect on the amenity of Mr C and his immediate neighbour (Mr B) (upheld); and
(b) failed to acknowledge Mr C's correspondence and respond in a timely manner (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
(i) explore further with Mr C and Mr B whether steps can be taken at the Council's expense to mitigate the detriment to their privacy as a result of overlooking from the house constructed on the Plot; and
(ii) take steps to ensure that they keep complainants updated when they are unable to respond to their complaints within the published timescales.

Overview
The complainant (Ms C) raised four specific complaints about the inadequate handling of a planning application by Falkirk Council (the Council), submitted by a Planning Consultant (the Agent) on her behalf.

Specific Complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) the Council failed to deal adequately with the pre-planning application enquiry (upheld);
(b) the Council failed to handle the outline planning application adequately and within statutory deadlines (partially upheld);
(c) there were delays by the Council in submitting information in connection with Ms C's appeal to the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporter's Unit (SEIRU) (upheld); and
(d) the Council failed both to respond and to respond adequately to reminder letters, emails, faxes and telephone calls (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
(i) offer Ms C a full apology for the shortcomings identified, and consider whether it would be appropriate for this to be reinforced by a modest payment in recognition of the effect of those shortcomings on her;
(ii) apologise to Ms C for the delay in submitting information to SEIRU and explain why it occurred.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) lives in a conservation area in an East Lothian town. His complaint concerned what he considered to be an inadequate response by East Lothian Council (the Council) to his complaints about nuisance from noise from an adjacent children's day care nursery.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council have failed to carry out their duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to detect, investigate and take appropriate action in respect of a noise nuisance emanating from an adjacent children's nursery (partially upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council's Environment Department agree with Mr C and his wife an appropriate regime of noise monitoring from the curtilage of their home over the summer months of 2009 to establish whether or not the noise levels they are experiencing constitute a statutory noise nuisance and, if so, seek instructions from the Council as to further action.

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

Overview

Mr and Mrs C and Mr and Mrs D (the Complainants) are two sets of neighbours whose properties sit either side of a residential property which was granted planning permission to be extended. The Complainants are aggrieved with the Council's handling of the planning proposals for the original development and the subsequent amendments to the consent. Mr and Mrs D complained also of delay and failure by the Council to reply to their correspondence on the matter.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council:

• (a) mishandled the planning proposals relating to the extension of a residential property; (upheld) and
• (b) failed to deal properly with Mr and Mrs D's representations about these proposals (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures to ensure that these contain clear advice on reporting to the Planning Committee where premature works have been carried out, whether or not these form part of the representations to a development proposal;
• (ii) formally apologise to Mr and Mrs C and Mr and Mrs D for the shortcomings identified in this report;
• (iii) make a payment of £500 to Mr and Mrs C and also to Mr and Mrs D towards their expenses; and
• (iv) examine and consider improvements in how they handle correspondence in any ongoing service review.

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

Overview

Mr and Mrs C complained to the Ombudsman's office that Aberdeen City Council (the Council) had failed to respond appropriately to complaints they made against a neighbour regarding their alleged behaviour. The complaints centred on, but were not exclusively about, noise emanating from their neighbour's property. At the time Mr C, Mrs C and their neighbour were tenants of the Council. In their various complaints to the Council about their neighbour's behaviour, Mr and Mrs C alleged that the Council both failed to document the reports of anti-social behaviour made by them and that, in meetings held with Council Housing Department officials, decisions were not recorded or followed up.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) telephone calls made by Mr and Mrs C to the Council's Neighbour Complaints Unit were either not recorded or not fully recorded (upheld);
• (b) records of meetings held with the Council's Housing Department officials were either not recorded or not fully recorded (upheld); and
• (c) the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to Mr and Mrs C's complaint of anti-social behaviour (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council write to Mr and Mrs C, apologising for the failings identified in this report.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding her new tenancy, in relation to the internal and external condition of the home and garden. She also said that the central heating system (the System) in place on taking tenancy was not fit for purpose and the new central heating system (the Replacement System) installed by Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) was inadequate. Finally, she complained about the Council's failure to connect a mains water supply to her home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) the failure of the Council to repair or modernise the house and garden, prior to and since taking up tenancy, and to make the house wind and watertight (upheld);
• (b) the System in place when Mrs C took up tenancy was not fit for the purpose intended and the Replacement System was inadequate (upheld); and
• (c) the failure of the Council to connect a mains water supply to the home (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) meet with Mrs C to identify and agree the repairs still required to the house, taking account of the issues identified in paragraphs 13 and 16, together with any other outstanding repairs, and their decision to upgrade all Cruden homes as reported in paragraph 38;
• (ii) provide him with an action plan detailing timescales to complete the outstanding works;
• (iii) reconsider Mrs C's claim for compensation for damage caused to her property from the flood;
• (iv) take action to insulate and draught proof Mrs C's property adequately;
• (v) re-assess the effectiveness of the Replacement System in relation to Mrs C's property, following action to insulate and draught proof Mrs C's home; and
• (vi) provide a full formal apology for the delay in connecting Mrs C to a mains water supply and for the failings identified in this report.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained that Dundee City Council (Council 1) restricted her autistic grandson (Mr A)'s access to education and life skills development by refusing to fund a residential placement for him at college.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Council 1 failed to provide a service to Mr A to meet his assessed needs (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Council 1:

• (i) review their practices for informing service users and their families of services that have been recommended and agreed;
• (ii) remind staff of the importance of recording on file service users' agreement with the content of their needs assessments;
• (iii) formally apologise to Mrs C and Mr A for the confusion and protracted correspondence caused by their failure to properly explain the reasons for their decision from the outset; and
• (iv) pay Mrs C the sum of £150.00 in recognition of the time and trouble that she went to to pursue this complaint.

Council 1 have accepted the recommendations and will act upon them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns regarding the care package provided to her sister (Ms A) that was co-ordinated by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council). She believed that the number of hours care was not adequate to meet Ms A's needs, and that care providers were wrong in their view that Ms A could make decisions for herself.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Ms A was not receiving a care package that was adequate for her needs (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council and Ms C enter into constructive dialogue to resolve any outstanding issues and to deal with future changes to Ms A's care package, to help all involved understand the issues and gain reassurance about the support being provided. This would, of course, take place only with Ms A's consent in the light of the Council's stated responsibility to give primary consideration to Ms A's needs and wishes.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) complained on behalf of a local action group (the Action Group) about the way in which Renfrewshire Council (the Council) handled a planning application and granted permission for a security fence on part of a former Royal Ordnance Factory site (the ROF site).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) planning permission was granted contrary to an undertaking given to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee and the Examination in Public (the EiP) (partially upheld, to the extent that the Council did not communicate clearly to the EiP their intentions with regard to the security fence application);
• (b) there was no need for a security fence (no finding);
• (c) the granting of planning permission prejudices the consideration of objections to the other applications pending (not upheld);
• (d) permission was granted, incorrectly, under delegated powers (not upheld);
• (e) the Council erred in accepting the application, which Ms C claimed should have had an accompanying environmental statement or information about contamination (not upheld); and
• (f) the Council's procedures for delegated powers were inadequate, in that the Director of Planning and Transport was not required to publish his delegated report in advance (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to the Action Group that they did not communicate clearly to the EiP their intentions with regard to the security fence application.

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