Local Government

Summary

C complained about the way in which the council discharged a planning condition. C told us that planning permission for a development of new properties located next to a busy road, included a condition which required the installation of a close boarded fence and/or earth bund at least 1.5 metres tall and enhanced glazing for rooms facing the busy road to mitigate noise. The developer was required to provide detailed plans in advance which would be subject to written approval. C also complained that the council failed to refer the issue to their Enforcement Team, which C believed to be contrary to the enforcement charter.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the process to discharge a condition should be transparent, properly recorded, and easily accessible as part of the public record. There had been failings in the way in which the decision was reached as the council failed to keep adequate records. We concluded that whilst the council appear to have considered the location and height of the fence when discharging the condition, they do not appear to have considered the quality. When new information came to light (about the quality of the fence and questioning whether the height of the fence was adequate) the council should have reviewed the evidence and reconsidered the adequacy of the information that they used to discharge the condition.

In light of the evidence, we found that there was maladministration in the way in which the council made the decision to discharge the planning condition, which was unreasonable. We also found that the council unreasonably failed to investigate C’s concerns about the quality of the fencing. As such, we upheld C’s complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the way in which the decision was made to discharge planning condition 9, and particularly that the decision was not transparent or easily accessible to the public. Apologise to C for failing to reasonably investigate their concerns about the quality of the fencing and apologise to C for failing to ensure the developer carried out the agreed remedial works. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Complaints of suspected planning breaches should be investigated in line with the planning enforcement charter and all new evidence should be given reasonable consideration. Enforcement action should be considered if and when appropriate.
• Decisions to discharge planning conditions should be transparent, properly recorded and easily accessible as part of the public record.
• Agreed actions should be monitored with sufficient follow-up to ensure compliance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the council’s handling of a planning application. Planning consent was approved for a development that was contrary to the Local Development Plan. Whilst C acknowledged that the Planning Committee were entitled to approve the development, they considered that, in doing so, the Committee failed to explain what material considerations had contributed to the decision to go against the Local Development Plan and approve the application. C also complained that a pre-determination hearing should have been held, but was not.

C raised their concerns in a complaint to the council. They said that it took many months of repeated attempts to obtain a response from the council and, when the council did respond, C did not consider that their concerns had been addressed.

We took independent advice from a planning specialist. There was no question that the Planning Committee had the authority to approve developments that were contrary to the Local Development Plan, as long as there were relevant material considerations, or justifiable reasons for doing so. We acknowledged the council’s position that the report of handling for the application set out the material considerations that had to be taken into account when determining the application and that this information was available to the Planning Committee when reaching their decision. However, the report of handling presented the material considerations with reference to the Local Development Plan and explained in detail why the Planning Officer considered the proposed development went against the Local Development Plan and why they recommended the application be refused. We found that there was a clear unexplained “leap” from the Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse, to the Committee’s decision to approve. We considered that there should have been a clear record of the reasons for approving the planning application in the minutes of the Committee meeting and in the decision notice. We were critical of the council for failing to record the reasoning behind the Planning Committee’s decision. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

We were satisfied that the decision on whether to hold a pre-determination hearing was a discretionary decision for the council to make. We found no evidence to suggest that their decision not to hold a pre-determination hearing was unreasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

With regard to the council’s handling of C’s complaint, we found that there were excessive delays to the council’s response, despite C chasing them on a number of occasions. We were critical of the council’s delays and their failure to consider C’s correspondence through their complaints procedure. We were also critical of the fact that, when the council issued their response, they failed to address the main points of C’s complaint. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the poor handling of their complaint and provide a full response to their initial enquiry as to the Planning Committee’s reasons for approving the application contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• That the council consider how they may take steps to clarify complaints to ensure that they are progressed through the correct channel.
• That the council share this decision with members of the Planning Committee and remind them of the need to properly document the reasons for their decisions.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C, a representative of an organisation that provides support to planning application objectors, complained on behalf of an objecting neighbour (A). C raised a number of concerns about the council’s handling of a retrospective planning application. An unauthorised development had been reported to the council’s planning enforcement team. The retrospective planning application was approved, subject to conditions. C complained that the council failed to reasonably assess the risk of flooding at the site, that they failed to follow correct procedure for the scale of the development and failed to take into account an objection submitted by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).

We reviewed the relevant planning documents and sought independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that there was a failure to seek a flood risk assessment, particularly in light of the concerns raised by SEPA, the fact the development was on a listed flood plain and the Planning Officer had identified a risk of flooding as a reason for recommending refusal of the application. As such, we upheld complaint C’s complaint about the failure to request a flood risk assessment.

In respect of C’s concerns about the council’s consideration of SEPA’s consultation response, we found that the content of SEPA’s response was accurately summarised in the Planning Officer’s report to the Planning Committee. We did not uphold this aspect of C’s complaint.

Our final consideration was whether the council failed to refer the planning application to Scottish Ministers. We concluded that the council should have treated SEPA’s response as an objection to the planning application and that this should have led to the application being referred to Scottish Ministers. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A for the issues highlighted in this decision. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• That the council offer to meet with A to discuss ways of establishing to what extent the development may have contributed to an increase in flooding on their property and what action the council can take to mitigate this.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The council should review their standard working practice of not requiring technical assessments in cases where they anticipate refusing an application due to the cost that would be incurred by the applicant.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about the council's handling of a planning application.

C's neighbour was granted planning consent for an outbuilding in their garden. C noted that this space was to be used for commercial activities and complained that the council failed to comply with their own adopted and emerging Local Development Plan policies when reaching the decision to approve the application. C did not consider that their concerns in this regard had been addressed in the report of handling.

C raised further concerns as to how the approved development would impact the neighbouring properties and the local area. C contended that the council failed to appropriately notify all of the affected neighbours.

When objecting to the development, and in their subsequent complaint to the council, C noted that approving the application would allow the developer, or future owners of the residential property, to conduct other activities that could be disruptive. C did not consider that the council had taken adequate steps to consider this eventuality, or to limit the activities to those listed by the applicant. C raised a complaint with the council, but did not feel that all of their concerns were addressed.

We took independent advice from a planning specialist. We found that the council were largely able to demonstrate that the planning application had been handled reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. However, the report of handling failed to address C's concerns about the potential for other activities taking place at the site in the future. Whilst we were satisfied that the council were entitled to reach the decision that they had, we were critical of them for failing to demonstrate that this issue had been considered prior to consent being granted and we made a recommendation in this regard. We also found that the council failed to address this, and another issue, in their responses to C's complaint. This was particularly concerning given how central these two issues were to C's complaints about their handling of the planning application. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to handle their complaint reasonably. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• That the council share this decision with their planning staff.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained to the council about various aspects of Social Work Services (SWS) involvement with their children. C complained that SWS failed to invite C to a 72-hour Looked After Child (a looked after child is a child under the care of the council) review. C further complained that at the review, SWS had not given appropriate consideration to the children's care planning, and had failed to correctly follow the Section 25 Children (Scotland) Act 1995 in placing their children with a family member.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that SWS had made reasonable attempts to contact C to advise them of the review meeting. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We found that information presented at the meeting was lacking in respect of the children's own views, and SWS had failed to fully document their discussions with one of C's children. However, we considered that appropriate consideration had been given to care planning for the children. Therefore on balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint but provided feedback to the council about the importance of ensuring accurate recording of social work activities, including seeking views, to inform care planning.

We also found that although C was in disagreement with the placement, and the views of the children themselves had been lacking, C's estranged partner had authority under section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to agree to the voluntary arrangement. We found SWS had followed best practice in ensuring C's estranged partner was appropriately supported in their decision-making regarding the children's care planning, and although there had been a delay in signing the section 25 paperwork, the placement had been valid. Therefore on balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C further complained that SWS had unreasonably presented at their home during COVID-19 restrictions. We found that SWS had failed to follow their own COVID-19 guidance relating to home visits by not exploring the option of a remote meeting with C. We also found SWS had not provided C with a copy of the relevant guidance; had not made enquiries as to the status of C's health; and had not confirmed what PPE would be required to support the visit in advance. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint to the extent that SWS had failed to follow its own guidance, but not to the extent there had been a breach of public health guidance for which this office has no jurisdiction.

C also disagreed with the council's responses to their complaints and the manner in which these had been handled. We did not find any concerns with the manner in which the council had handled C's complaints, all of which were responded to in line with the Model Complaint Handling Procedure and good complaint handling principles.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Feedback the findings of this investigation to relevant staff for reflection and learning, and to inform future practice.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about a financial assessment carried out in respect of their parent (A)'s, care costs. C complained that the council wrongly determined that in transferring the title to A's property to C three years previously, A had intentionally deprived themselves of capital to avoid paying residential care costs. C disagreed with the council’s decision to treat the value of the property as notional capital when calculating the costs that A owed.

There followed extensive communication between the council, C and C's solicitor. According to C, A had no expectation of going into care when they transferred the property, or at any point in the future. C said that A was a very active, intelligent and healthy individual who had every intention of remaining in the same home for the rest of their life. Nor, as far as C was aware, had A had any thoughts of disposing of some of their assets to avoid paying for care in the future.

Summary

C complained that the council failed to communicate with them reasonably in respect of the strategies used to prevent their child (A) being bullied at school by another pupil (B). Specifically, C complained about not being aware of the strategy in place for B at lunchtimes which resulted in A meeting B unaccompanied. C also complained about the effectiveness of the strategies used to protect A from B, noting their particular concern about both pupils being taught in the same location. However, in accordance with the SPSO Act 2002 we refrained from commenting on the quality of the strategies used. Rather, we investigated whether the council had acted in keeping with their policies and procedures.

We found that the council had implemented strategies in line with their policies and procedures, and that these were kept under review. We also found evidence of regular communication with C and A. Of note, the incident where A encountered B occurred outside of school grounds. As the strategies in place where only applicable within the school and its grounds, we did not find the communication with C on this matter to be unreasonable. We also concluded that the strategies implemented by the school were in keeping with the council's policies and procedures and that steps had been taken to mitigate against A encountering B.

Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C and B complained to the council about their child's (A) move to a residential placement under a section 25 arrangement (Children (Scotland) Act 1995). They said that the placement had been highly inappropriate and had not met A's complex needs. C and B further complained that they had felt pressurised into agreeing to the move and had been given inaccurate information by social workers about the resource.

In response the council said that the placement had been made on an emergency basis and in good faith that it would meet A's needs. They disagreed that it had been highly inappropriate. Although at the time they had been unaware of the provider's personal search practices, they agreed as a result of the complaint to request this information from all residential providers moving forward.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to find the best possible resource to meet A's complex needs within the limited timeframe available. Although we agreed that the council should have been made aware of their provider's personal search practices, we concluded that the council had acted reasonably in terms of their communications with C and B regarding the suitability of the resource and the information given to them and found no evidence to support that C and B had been pressurised into agreeing to the move. As such, we did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

C and B further complained that the council had failed to explain to them that it had been their intention to move A to secure accommodation and social workers had relied on inaccurate health reporting to inform this decision. C and B explained that they had been invited to a meeting with social workers but had been unaware it would be to discuss secure measures. As such, they had been denied the opportunity to have legal representation to challenge the council's decision and to prevent the move.

We were unable to reach a finding on what information had been given to C and B about the purpose of the meeting. While we acknowledged that having legal representation may have aided their understanding of the process, we found that this would not have had any bearing on the decision to move A to secure care. We concluded that the council had provided C and B with all the appropriate information leading to the decision, including the legal process and their rights of appeal. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C and B further complained that the council had failed to respond appropriately to their concerns that A may be self-harming during their placement.

While we found that overall the incidences of A's self-harm had been taken seriously, one particular incident had not been considered as thoroughly as it should have been and there had been a failure to report A's injuries to C and B at the time. Therefore, on balance, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C and B, and to A, for failing to give appropriate consideration to an incident where A had self-harmed. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• In situations where a young person is at risk of self-harm, there should be clarity in the council's contract with external care providers about the reporting of such incidents to the family/carers and to the council themselves.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C's complaints related to a council-run football pitch next to their home. C reported that the noise levels from the pitch, as well as foul language by the users of the pitch were reaching unreasonable levels, particularly later in the evening before the pitch closed at 10pm, and that this was keeping their young child awake. They explained that they had provided recordings to the council to evidence this, but that the council had refused to take action to address it.

We found that the council had, in response to C's concerns, amended their letting terms and conditions to ensure that there were clear rules prohibiting unreasonable noise levels and language by renters of the pitch. However, the only steps that the council had taken to address this with users, was to send a general email about unreasonable noise to all renters of pitches they ran, warning that leases may be removed if terms and conditions were breached by unreasonable behaviour.

Given that C had been providing clear reports and recordings of specific times and behaviours, we considered it was unreasonable for the council not to take any steps to raise these issues with the specific users responsible. We also considered that the council had failed to provide sufficient explanations to C of the kind of evidence that they would consider and how they would investigate their concerns.

For these reasons, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Explain to C what they need to do to report and evidence unreasonable use of the pitches going forward.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• When receiving evidence of misuse of council facilities, the council should take appropriate action to ensure the users responsible abide by the letting terms and conditions.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained about social care provided by the council to their elderly parent and how the council had communicated with them in relation to this.

The complaint was taken to investigation on the basis of the information provided by the council to our initial enquiries and considered by a social work adviser. However, in response to our notification of investigation, the council provided evidence of further information explaining the reasons for the poor communication with C and further details of measures taken to address the failings in this case, which they fully accepted.

We took further advice from our social work adviser, who confirmed the measures taken by the council were reasonable in the circumstances. On this basis, it was agreed with C that we would request the council to issue a further apology to C, which they provided. However, C advised that they did not wish to accept the apology once it had been received. On review of the apology, it appeared to be reasonable and in accordance with the SPSO guidance on apologies. On this basis, the investigation of C's complaint was discontinued as there was nothing further we could achieve.