SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that, following exceptionally stormy and windy weather, the fence in his garden fell down. He reported this to the council but was not satisfied with the responses he received. He said that the council would not tell him when it was likely to be repaired. He complained saying that this caused a security issue and that he was seeking compensation. Our investigation found that the council had told Mr C that a quote had been received and the job was listed on a programme of repairs to be carried out. However, because of the storms, the council had a backlog of such repairs to be carried out. While the complaint was with us, the fence was repaired and was inspected by a housing officer who also issued an instruction for preservative to be applied to the new section. We found that the actions of the council had been reasonable in this matter and did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201104167 as a PDF (16.67 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about a housing development next to her home. She was concerned that the council had not considered the loss to her amenity when granting planning consent for this development. She also complained that the council failed to notify neighbours individually, as they were required to do. As a result, Mrs C felt her right to object was removed. When Mrs C complained formally to the council, the Director of Development Services explained that had she objected, he would have reached the same decision. Mrs C she felt that this statement undermined her statutory right as an objector. As we had already upheld a complaint about the lack of neighbour notification from another resident, we did not look into this issue. We found evidence from the council’s planning report that officers had considered the issue of amenity of neighbouring residents and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We also found that the statement from the Director was reasonable as the council had considered relevant 'material' facts in planning terms. As a result we did not uphold this part of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201102614 as a PDF (14.04 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to notify neighbours about a planning application. Mr C also disagreed with the discretionary decision to approve the application. He had complained to the council after the work started. The council acknowledged, and apologised to him for, the failure to send out the specific neighbour notification letters (NNL) although the application had been advertised in the local press. The letters had been prepared but due to an oversight they were not sent out. The council also considered the objections that Mr C would have made to the application and concluded that, even had his objections been received, they would still have taken the decision to grant planning permission to his neighbour. Our enquiries to the council confirmed that they had fully acknowledged the error in relation to the NNLs and had taken appropriate remedial action to put a new system in place that would prevent any application progressing until two different officers had confirmed that NNLs had gone out. We felt that this action was sufficiently robust to minimise the possibility of a recurrence. Therefore, although we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, we did not make any recommendations. The planning decision itself was a discretionary decision which our enquiries confirmed had been taken without maladministration. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201102723 as a PDF (14.21 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter who owned an attic flat in a listed building. The complaint concerned the council's handling of the implementation of a Repairs Notice, the percentage of grant aid to which his daughter was eligible and the council's alleged failure to explain why they deducted some items from the contract as non eligible expenditure. Mr C also complained that the council had used double standards in requiring that his daughter install replacement wooden sash and case windows when other owners had previously installed unauthorised cheaper PVC windows. We found no evidence of maladministration and did not uphold any aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201002493 as a PDF (13.65 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

In November 2010 those in the area of the street on which Mr C's business is situated was advised that works to improve the appearance of the street would begin in a few days. Mr C was concerned that he had not been consulted on these works and raised this issue with the council via several councillors. An initial response from the council said that they had consulted in 2009 and subsequent responses stated that consultation had been undertaken in February 2010. Mr C remained dissatisfied at the end of the council's complaints process and raised his complaint with us. He also said that the council had provided conflicting information about when consultation had occurred and was unhappy with the time that it had taken for him to receive responses to his correspondence. Upon investigation we could see no evidence that the council had not consulted properly on the works. The council also explained that the seeming discrepancy in dates had been a genuine error. We did not consider the delays in Mr C receiving responses to his correspondence to be the fault of the council. Related reading View Decision Report 201100228 as a PDF (13.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018