SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained to us that the council were failing to ensure that he had reasonable vehicular access to his home. He said he could not access it on a number of occasions because he could not pass parked cars. He complained that the council had carried out works that had narrowed the road, and allowed neighbours to construct a drive that effectively reduced the available parking space. Finally, he was unhappy that the council had refused his request to introduce parking restrictions to ensure he had clear access. The council explained that they had built a fence beside the road for safety reasons and that after Mr C told them about the problems he was having, they moved the fence as much as they could to improve the road width. They inspected the site, and were of the view that Mr C could access his drive safely if neighbours parked considerately. They also inspected the driveway and said they did not consider it a safety hazard and that it did not restrict access along the road. They explained that if parked cars blocked access, Mr C should contact the police. The council also pointed out that introducing parking restrictions would involve making a traffic order. This would require a consultation with neighbours who might not be supportive, and the council thought that progressing an order at this time would not be appropriate. We considered the evidence provided by both parties and reviewed the council's statutory responsibilities in terms of roads maintenance and parking. We noted that they had carried out works to improve safety and, when advised of the impact this had on access, had taken further action to move the fence and widen the access. We found that they had investigated all Mr C's concerns and had acted to try and improve access. We also noted that they had explained that they had no means of restricting parking other through a traffic order, which they considered inappropriate. We found no evidence to show that they failed to act appropriat

Ms C was unhappy when the council granted planning permission for revised access arrangements from a private road. In doing so, they had taken account of part D of the Local Plan policy. They attached a binding condition to the consent - that visibility splays (an area clear of obstruction to allow drivers to see any traffic coming) were to be in place before any houses built could be occupied. Ms C complained that this could not be complied with as the access improvements could not be made because the applicant did not own the road, and it was too narrow. She said that the council were acting in breach of the policy because they did not resist the application. When investigating this complaint, we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. The council explained that the visibility splays were assessed against current policy and deemed appropriate, and that they considered the private road and access to be suitable for additional vehicular traffic. Council officers use their professional judgement on matters such as these. We noted that in making their decision it was for the council to judge how important each relevant point is. We cannot question a decision they are entitled to take, in the absence of evidence that something has gone wrong in the decision making process. The matter of who owned the road was not relevant to the consideration of the application. We were satisfied that the council's processing of the application and the manner in which the access issues were considered was in line with procedure, and the council had clearly explained their position. We saw no evidence of procedural or administrative fault in the council's handling of the application. Related reading View Decision Report 201204782 as a PDF (11.44 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was unhappy about the way the council dealt with planning issues in connection with a neighbouring property and access rights to Mr C's own property. In particular, Mr C was concerned that a breach of a planning condition had been ongoing for a number of years. During our investigation we confirmed that, as Mr C's concerns about access rights had been the subject of court action, we could not become involved in that. On his other complaints, we found that, although the council had considered and decided against formal enforcement action on the planning condition, there had been periods where no active monitoring of the site had taken place and we upheld that element of Mr C's complaint. We did not, however, find evidence that the council were treating the neighbouring site more favourably than they were Mr C.

Mr C said that the council acted unreasonably when granting a planning application for two houses. He complained that in doing so they had acted contrary to the opinion of their own adviser and officers and against the wishes of the local community. He maintained that the permission granted was in conflict with the council's own structure and local plans. We investigated Mr C's complaint, taking into account all the complaints correspondence, minutes of the relevant committee meetings and the relevant planning documentation. We also obtained independent planning advice on the matters involved. Our investigation found that Mr C was correct, in that the council's own advisers had said that a previous planning permission had brought the area concerned to capacity, and planning officers had recommended that the new application be refused. A community plan adopted by the council to inform the decision making process was also against the award of planning permission. However, the independent advice we received confirmed that the council had discretion to determine applications by interpreting development plan policies in a particular way, or by giving whatever weight it wished to the material considerations (genuine planning considerations related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest) that applied. Our adviser noted that development plans are not just for guidance, but also that they are not rigid instruments for determining planning applications. In this particular case, the adviser said, the council (via a delegated committee) had decided to approve the application and in doing so gave reasons why, together with their reasons for feeling that this was not a departure from the development plan. The adviser also went to explain that the community plan to which Mr C referred was non-statutory planning guidance, and the council had discretion as to the weight they gave it when making thei

Mr C complained to us that the council failed to take appropriate action about unauthorised works in a harbour near his home. He maintained that the council had passively watched these works over a period of time, knowing that as responsible planning authority they were legally required to take enforcement action to stop them; that they pretended for several months that they were unaware of their legal rights and their duty to take enforcement action; and that they had jeopardised the outcome of any future application for planning consent for these works by demonstrating disregard for the rights, views and wishes of the people in the town. When we first received the complaint, a decision about the development was still going through the planning process. Because of this, we told Mr C that it would not be appropriate to investigate at that time. After the council confirmed to us that an application for retrospective planning consent had been granted, we investigated Mr C's complaints but did not uphold them. We obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He noted that the planning background was complex in that parts of the harbour were listed; the harbour was in a conservation area; the harbour authority were a statutory undertaker (ie that they had legal rights to carry out certain developments and works) and claimed that the development was permitted; some of the works were below the high water mark; and claims had been made that because of works undertaken in the past it was not possible to take successful enforcement action. He also pointed out that the council's enforcement powers were discretionary rather than mandatory. We found that the council had opened an enforcement file before Mr C had contacted them. They had also properly liaised with the developer and his agents and had reported to the appropriate committee on four occasions, explaining that they had asked the developer to submit an application for retrospective planning consent. T

The owners of three properties located next to another property with a large rear garden complained about a planning application. The properties are in a conservation area but are not listed as of historical or architectural interest. An application for planning consent was made to build a single house on a plot in the large rear garden. The complainants objected, saying that this would dominate their rear garden area and have consequences for daylight, sunlight and privacy. The application, which was subsequently amended in the light of comments from council planning officers, attracted a large number of objections and other representations, including a representation from a local councillor (made in a private capacity). When the amended application was placed before the relevant committee, they decided to hold a hearing of parties and a site visit. The hearing was addressed by two of the complainants, and by other interested parties, and the application was given conditional approval. The complainants alleged that the council did not take adequate steps to notify the councillor about the hearing and failed to ensure that the committee that determined the application was provided with adequate plans on the proposed development. We did not uphold these complaints. We found that the councillor's name was missed from the list of objectors because of an oversight, but the evidence also suggested that the council took adequate steps to let him know about the hearing through the normal correspondence system for councillors. The complainants also said that a site location plan attached to the report to the committee did not show their rear garden arrangements. The council said that the site plan submitted by the applicants agents was based on the Ordnance Survey map of the area and was sufficient to validate the application and establish the proximity of neighbouring properties. The plan attached to the report was purely designed to draw members' attention to the location

Mr C raised his concerns about the council's decision to grant permission to his neighbour to install car access to his home. He complained that the council had not carried out a consultation prior to granting consent and had not carried out an appropriate risk assessment. He stated that he was concerned about the safety implications of the driveway, partially as there was a primary school opposite. The council explained that installation of the driveway did not require planning consent. The only permissions required were in terms of a consent to allow vehicles to cross the pavement and a road opening permit to allow works to lower the kerb. A qualified roads engineer from the council assessed the site against the council's roads guidance as safe. As the council had complied with its responsibilities in terms of the relevant roads legislation and as they had carried out the necessary assessments, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201102838 as a PDF (13.76 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had breached National Care Standards by amending their policy in relation to foster carers’ ability to claim for travel expenses, and in relation to providing child care at training and consultation days. He also complained about the way the council had handled his complaints. Mr C stated he was disadvantaged by the amendment to the foster carer’s allowance, which meant he could no longer claim for journeys of less than 50 miles. He felt that this expenditure should not come out of an allowance for an individual child, and that he was discriminated against as an individual who lived in a more remote location than other foster carers receiving the same allowance. He also explained the council had failed to provide child care at some training events, which made it more difficult for foster carers such as him to attend. We did not uphold this complaint, although we criticised the council’s consultation process in relation to changing its policy about foster carers’ allowances. We found that the change did not breach the Standards and were within the council’s discretion. We also found that the council had apologised for failing to provide child care at training events, and did so at subsequent events. We upheld Mr C’s complaint about the complaints handling process. We found there were lengthy delays in him receiving responses at some stages of the process, and that at one stage the complaint went back to someone who had dealt with it at an earlier stage. Mr C also had to request twice that his complaint be responded to by the Chief Executive as per the council’s procedure.

Mr C complained that the council failed to consider the points he made when he objected to a new development next to his home. He also said that the council had not considered the effect of this development on a listed building and had not taken action on his complaint that a block of flats were not built in the correct place. We found the council had considered the points Mr C made in his letter of objection and had reported them to the planning committee. They had also acted reasonably in considering the effect of the development on the listed building. There was no requirement for listed building consent. We found that it was reasonable for the council to consider that the minor change to the footprint of the block of flats and the small change in its height to tie in with road levels did not have material consequences for other properties. We also found that the council had investigated Mr C’s complaints about the matter. Related reading View Decision Report 201002285 as a PDF (13.86 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to recognise his wife, Mrs C, as the rateable occupier of a business. This business is owned by a larger company of which both Mr and Mrs C are directors, and Mrs C had entered into a lease with that company for the business. The council questioned whether the larger company and the business could be considered as being separate entities in terms of rateable occupancy and decided, for a number of reasons, that they could not. Mr C was also unhappy with how the council had handled his complaint about this issue. We decided that we could not uphold his complaint about the Council's refusal to consider Mrs C the rateable occupier of the business as this was a discretionary decision of the council. Although Mr C disagreed with that decision, this was not, in itself evidence of maladministration. We upheld the complaints handling aspects of his complaint. As the council had already apologised to Mr C for their mistakes and as the Chief Executive had requested that they carry out a review into how they handle correspondence, we made no recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201005046 as a PDF (13.98 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council changed their policy on free school transport without consultation with the parents concerned. This meant that his two primary school age children were no longer entitled to free bus travel to school. He complained that the council had not followed the Road Safety guidelines and did not ensure that the road safety report (assessment of the walking route) was compiled correctly. He also complained that inspections, notifications and decisions on road safety were not undertaken fairly (as part of a consultation) and the council failed to give parents early advice of the alternative arrangements which might be available for their children. Our investigation found that there was no requirement for the council to consult before making the policy change because it was undertaken as part of their budget process. And although the parents had obtained an independent report which concluded that the route was unsafe to walk, there was no evidence that the council did not assess the route in accordance with requirements and guidelines. Finally, we found that that the council had engaged with parents and had corresponded with Mr C when he raised his concerns about the changes. Related reading View Decision Report 201003260 as a PDF (13.91 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018