Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C), a tenant of Falkirk Council (the Council) with a lock-up garage on council land, raised a number of concerns regarding permissions given to owners of a house (Mr and Mrs D) to facilitate the building of a rear extension to their home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to consult with users of the lock-up garage site (the Site) with regard to permissions that they had given to facilitate construction work at Mr and Mrs D's house (not upheld);
• (b) the Council failed to expedite action after they had been informed that users of the Site were being obstructed and inconvenienced (partially upheld); and
• (c) officers of the Council gave misleading information to residents through the local councillor (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council look at the circumstances of the consent granted in this case with a view to ensuring that future consents anticipate that activities related to the siting of a skip on Council land are regulated and the consequences of non adherence with any conditions are stated.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns in respect of his neighbour's application to East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) to construct an extension at the gable of his house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to have regard to their Local Plan guidance on privacy and intervisibility of windows in granting planning consent to the application (partially upheld);
• (b) failed to take enforcement action to ensure that an upstairs en-suite bathroom window was provided with obscure glazing (partially upheld); and
• (c) delayed unduly in responding to Mr C's concerns (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for their shortcomings; and
• (ii) explore with Mr C and his neighbour the introduction of screening to preserve Mr C's privacy from overlooking from his neighbour's downstairs windows.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.  They have indicated with regard to (ii) that if that outcome can be achieved, the Council's Planning Service would, in the interests of customer relations, bear such reasonable costs as might arise.

Overview

Scottish Borders Council (the Council) built a new footpath adjacent to the complainant (Mrs C)'s property.  Mrs C complained that the position of this footpath had adversely affected her privacy by directing pedestrians onto the land in front of her house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council built a footpath adjacent to Mrs C's property which directed pedestrians onto her land (upheld); and
• (b) the Council's response to Mrs C's complaint about this was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council

• (i) apologise to Mrs C and her husband for not consulting with them about the impact of the new footpath on their privacy; and
• (ii) ensure that there is appropriate consultation with residents likely to be affected by 'Safer Routes to School' projects.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that with a replacement central heating system that was installed in his home by North Ayrshire Council (the Council) failed to meet his specific needs.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mr C claimed that with a replacement central heating system that was installed in his home by the Council failed to meet his specific needs (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about the planning advice given to him concerning a plot of land he wished to purchase.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C was not given an explanation for the reasons why the development plot was affected by a change of circumstances or why the definitive advice given to him in October 2004 did not apply (not upheld);
• (b) Mr C's objections to planning permission were not taken into account and he was not advised that planning permission was granted on 6 April 2006 (upheld); and
• (c) the Council delayed in responding to Mr C's correspondence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council emphasise to staff that care should be taken in responding to correspondence and that replies given to members of the public address the concerns raised and be made in a timely fashion.  She also recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for failing to advise him from the outset that planning permission had been granted.

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

Overview

The complainant, Ms C, complained on behalf of her sister (Ms A) that Inverclyde Council (the Council)'s Social Work Department had failed to respond appropriately to concerns raised about the behaviour of Ms A's former partner towards their children.  Ms C pursued this through the Council's complaint procedure and made written and oral submissions to a Complaints Review Committee (the CRC).  The CRC did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the CRC's consideration of this matter was inadequate and did not take into account all relevant evidence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that guidance to CRC members and relevant staff clearly indicates the importance of careful drafting in the report, to ensure that the decision is fully recorded;
• (ii) ensure that, in future, any extension to the time limits, as set out in the Directions, is agreed by the parties; and
• (iii) apologise to Ms C for the failings identified in this report.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the way South Ayrshire Council (the Council) tried to extinguish the equestrian rights of way over a pathway where such rights existed and where the landowner had placed barriers to prevent horses from using the pathway.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to maintain the right of way as per their responsibilities under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 (upheld);
• (b) delayed in seeking an Extinguishment Order in respect of the right of way (upheld); and
• (c) failed to pass the matter to the Scottish Executive for determination within a reasonable timescale (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) take prompt action to ensure that it complies with its statutory obligations under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 in relation to the pathway; and
• (ii) introduce a robust procedure to ensure that it administers its responsibilities under the Countryside (Scotland ) Act 1967 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 within acceptable timescales.

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

Overview

Two complaints were submitted on behalf of four households whose properties shared a rear boundary with a site (the Site) which was developed for housing.  The complainants raised a number of concerns regarding the handling by West Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) of planning applications for the Site submitted by a developer (the Developer) and what they saw as unauthorised development.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council failed to ensure that:

• (a) the Developer complied properly with the statutory neighbour notification procedure (not upheld);
• (b) the planning applications included full details of the proposed ground levels and associated engineering works (not upheld);
• (c) proper account was taken of possible encroachment, loss of privacy and light, removal of existing trees and the impact of noise on amenity (not upheld): and
• (d) road safety implications were considered (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council take action to secure the early installation of bollards and fencing which they earlier identified as desirable.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and informed the Ombudsman that they would contact the Developer to complete the early installation of the bollards and fencing mentioned in paragraph 25 of the report.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding her housing circumstances, particularly with regard to her request to North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) for re-housing from her previous home, their handling of her request for a mutual exchange, and their refusal to provide appropriate aid and adaptations in her current flat and to take measures with regard to the presence of asbestos.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) did not properly respond to Mrs C's request for re-housing because of threats to her son (not upheld);
• (b) unreasonably requested that Mrs C sign an undertaking not to request adaptations in her current flat (partially upheld);
• (c) infringed Mrs C's human rights and her rights as a disabled person by failing to install adaptations following her move (partially upheld); and
• (d) unreasonably failed to repair or remove damaged asbestos panels in Mrs C's bathroom (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mrs C for the inconvenience caused to her by failing to have proper regard to her assessed needs.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the handling by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) of an application (the Application) for planning consent made by his neighbour (Mr N) for alteration to and extension of his property.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to ensure that Mr N complied with the requisite notification of his proposals (partially upheld);
• (b) failed to take action on a neighbour notification received by Mr C on 16March2006 which was clearly invalid (partially upheld);
• (c) failed to respond to Mr C's request of 25 April 2006 for information on when the Application would be considered and if he could address the Development Quality Sub-Committee (upheld); and
• (d) compiled a report on the Application without a site visit by a planning officer and which contained errors of fact and incorrect interpretation of their own policies (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mr C for their identified failings.

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