Local Government

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about North Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s handling of a planning matter relating to a site adjacent to his property which had been the subject of a number of planning proposals.  He was aggrieved because the contractor carried out unauthorised works and he alleged that the Council delayed in taking enforcement action.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  delayed in taking action against the contractor (upheld); and
• (b)  delayed in taking action following the decision to serve an enforcement notice (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Mr C for failing to deal efficiently with his complaints; and
• (ii)  produce internal guidance on good practice in Planning Enforcement which should include advice for officers on the need to maintain properly documented records of their investigation of each case.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and have confirmed that arrangements have been made to act on them.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to complaints made by him and his wife (Mrs C) regarding the anti-social behaviour of two local residents and failed to consider witness statements and video evidence.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to complaints made by Mr and Mrs C regarding the anti-social behaviour of two local residents including the consideration of witness statements and video evidence (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to formalise their complaint into the Council's Feedback Procedure at the correct time;
• (ii) ensure any future complaints by Mr and Mrs C are dealt with in accordance with current procedural requirements; and
• (iii) ensure that staff involved with complaints of the same or a similar type are adequately trained in current Council procedures.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was aggrieved at East Lothian Council (the Council)'s decision to require her to pay a £69 access charge in order to allow her gas appliances to receive an annual check.  She complained that the new procedure was not explained sufficiently to tenants and that the Council were unreasonable in requiring her to pay this given that she had made attempts to provide access.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        the Council were unreasonable in requiring her to pay an access charge of £69 (not upheld); and
• (b)        the Council failed to explain sufficiently the new system to tenants (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i)         in the particular circumstances which applied to Ms C, the Council reconsider their demand that she pay the £69 access charge; and
• (ii)        in this case, as there appeared to be some confusion about access visits and requests for access visits, the Ombudsman suggests that the Council review the terms of their standard letters and those of British Gas.

The Council have declined to accept the Ombudsman's recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the allocation of land between her tenancy and that of her adjacent neighbours (Mr and Mrs Z) who had purchased their council house in 1992 and at the erection of a fence by the Council in early 2006 which, she stated, had created difficulties for her in presenting her domestic refuse bin for uplift.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        neither the Council nor their predecessor informed Mrs C or her ex-husband of the land conveyed in 1992 to Mr and Mrs Z (not upheld);
• (b)        the Council did not inform Mrs C beforehand that they intended to erect a fence at the gable of her home (no finding);
• (c)        the Council's Area Housing Manager failed to keep an undertaking to get back to Mrs C after consulting with the Council's Cartographic Services (upheld); and
• (d)        the Council had not responded to the concern Mrs C had expressed about difficulties in presenting her domestic refuse for uplift (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council issue an appropriate letter of apology to Mrs C for their failure to get back to her on (c).

 The Council have accepted that recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the allocation of land between her tenancy and that of her adjacent neighbours (Mr and Mrs Z) who had purchased their council house in 1992 and at the erection of a fence by the Council in early 2006 which, she stated, had created difficulties for her in presenting her domestic refuse bin for uplift.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        neither the Council nor their predecessor informed Mrs C or her ex-husband of the land conveyed in 1992 to Mr and Mrs Z (not upheld);
• (b)        the Council did not inform Mrs C beforehand that they intended to erect a fence at the gable of her home (no finding);
• (c)        the Council's Area Housing Manager failed to keep an undertaking to get back to Mrs C after consulting with the Council's Cartographic Services (upheld); and
• (d)        the Council had not responded to the concern Mrs C had expressed about difficulties in presenting her domestic refuse for uplift (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council issue an appropriate letter of apology to Mrs C for their failure to get back to her on (c).

 The Council have accepted that recommendation.

Overview

Three complainants (Mr A, Mr B and Mrs C) were concerned that they did not receive any notification of a neighbour's planning application to build two extensions to his property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take appropriate action once they were alerted by the complainants that they had not been notified of their neighbour's planning application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the handling of applications for planning permission and conservation area consent made to East Lothian Council (the Council) for a housing development in his village.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council did not have proper regard to:

• (a)        policy statements in the Structure Plan and Local Plan and their obligations under sections 59 and 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (the 1997 Act) in considering and determining the applications (not upheld); and
• (b)        the views of objectors and did not refer the matter to the Council's Planning Committee for determination (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs D) raised a number of concerns about the handling of applications for planning permission and conservation area consent made to East Lothian Council (the Council) for a housing development in their village.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council did not have proper regard to:

• (a)        policy statements in the Structure Plan and Local Plan and their obligations under sections 59 and 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (the 1997 Act) in considering and determining the applications (not upheld); and
• (b)        the views of objectors and did not refer the matter to the Council's Planning Committee for determination (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the handling by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) of planning applications for a site adjacent to his home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council did not:

• (a)        have proper regard to site levels in the development (not upheld);
• (b)        ensure that appropriate plans were made available to enable neighbours properly to gauge the effect of the proposed development on their privacy (not upheld); and
• (c)        insist that the play area for the development was incorporated within the development rather than adjacent to existing housing (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant Ms C raised a number of concerns about how the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) dealt with her reports to them about the removal of an original fireplace from a listed building.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to deal with Ms C's concerns about the fireplace appropriately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)         within three months, follow up the evidence disclosed in this report and consider whether there are grounds to review their decision to take no further enforcement action;
• (ii)        emphasise to Enforcement Officers the importance of obtaining entry and making proper enquiries; and
• (iii)       apologise to Ms C for failing to deal with her concerns appropriately.

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