Inverclyde Council - complaint was from Ms C about Inverclyde Council’s (the Council) proposals to reorganise secondary education in the Inverclyde area.
Local Government
Argyll and Bute Council - complaint was from Mr C and his partner Mr D that Argyll and Bute Council (the Council) had failed to award them medical points when considering their housing application. Subsequently Mr C and Mr D raised concerns that the Council had failed to consider them homeless under the terms of the Scottish Executive Code of Guidance on Homelessness due to their 'fear of external violence'
Scottish Borders Council - complaint was from a man (Mr C) against Scottish Borders Council (the Council). The complaint concerned the Council's handling of an application for planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse within the grounds of a former hotel in the village of X. Mr C's property was adjacent to the site, known as plot 4 (hotel site). Mr C contended that the Council failed to ensure that the development was in accordance with the Council's planning policy and procedure for the village, and that it constituted over-development of the site, which adversely affected the amenity of his property. The complaint was not upheld.
The Highland Council - complaint was from a member of the public (Ms C) who claimed that the Highland Council (the Council) had failed to carry out repairs and to properly maintain her home, and also that the Council had failed to deal effectively with anti-social neighbours.
Fife Council - complaint was from a man (Mr C) who had complained to Fife Council (the Council) about the condition of the kerb on a footpath leading to a new housing development near his home.
South Ayrshire Council - complaint was against South Ayrshire Council (the Council) from Mr C. Mr C complained that the Council failed to consult all interested parties in relation to a proposal, and ultimately a decision, to relocate and re-designate Tarbolton Nursery School.
Inverclyde Council - complaint was from Mr C about the Inverclyde Council's (the Council) proposals to reorganise secondary education in the Inverclyde area. In July and August 2005, a further 130 people also made representations about the proposals and, of these, three went on to make formal complaints to this office. These have been the subject of separate reports to the Scottish Parliament. As the complaints covered the same issue, the decision was reached to investigate the matters raised, together.
Fife Council - The complaint is related to, and follows on from, another complaint being reported on (200400766) about the handling of a planning application for housing on a site to the rear of the complainant's home. In both complaints it was considered that Fife Council (the Council) mishandled aspects of the original planning application and neighbour notification. In this complaint, an allegation of delay in handling correspondence was upheld, but a complaint that the Council had approved a subsequent planning application to the detriment of residents was not upheld. The Council accepted the recommendation in the joint complaint to have an independent valuer assess any possible loss in property value with a view to appropriate payments being made and to changing the wording of their responses to complaints.
South Ayrshire Council - Ombudsman received confirmation from the Secretary of Tarbolton Tenants and Residents Association (the Association) that Councillor C had been asked to pursue a complaint on their behalf against South Ayrshire Council (the Council). Their complaint was that the Council had attempted to influence the outcome of a Public Local Inquiry.
East Lothian Council - complaint was from a man (Mr C) against East Lothian Council (the Council). The complaint concerned the Council’s handling of a planning proposal to demolish a listed building and erect a new housing development in the town of X where he lived. Mr C contended that the Council failed to deal with the proposal in accordance with the proper planning procedure; and that, as a consequence, the development would have an adverse effect on the amenity of the locality. The complaint was not upheld.