SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the council failed to deal with a planning application in line with the appropriate procedures and to appropriately take his objections into account. He also said that they failed to respond reasonably to his enquiries or deal with his complaint appropriately. Our investigation found that the council had dealt with the planning application in line with its published scheme of delegation and that the decision was properly made. The report produced by the planning officer dealt appropriately with the objections received and the council had provided two detailed responses to Mr C's complaints. Although there were minor errors in the handling of the complaint, the council had identified and apologised for these, and there was no evidence that they had affected the council's decision. Related reading View Decision Report 201200342 as a PDF (10.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a council tenant, complained about changes to the lighting in the close that he shares with his neighbour. He said that, historically, lighting was provided from dusk to dawn, but that this service was withdrawn in November 2011. Our investigation found that the council were not obliged to provide lighting in the close. The original light was connected to Mr C's neighbour's electricity supply and, although there was an understanding that the light would be left on overnight, this was ultimately at her discretion. When a new tenant moved into that property she decided not to use the light. Although the council were not required to light the close, we found that they had provided Mr C with a second light, over which he had sole control. We were satisfied that this was an appropriate gesture and that they had suggested other steps that he could take to increase the level of lighting available. Related reading View Decision Report 201200538 as a PDF (11.15 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C purchased their council house under the right to buy scheme. At that time, they were aware they had outstanding council tax arrears. They believed that, as part of the sale, their solicitor had paid the arrears. Two years after the sale, they received a letter from the council telling them that the arrears were still outstanding. They complained that the council had made a procedural error because the finance department had not made the legal services department aware of these arrears and so this was not included in the statement provided to Mr and Mrs C's solicitors at the time of the sale. As part of the local complaints process, we found that the council had already acknowledged and apologised for a procedural error in processing the statement. Therefore, we upheld the complaint. We gave careful consideration to whether we needed to make any recommendations to the council as a result of upholding the complaint. The council had, however, apologised and had also agreed to delay taking action to collect the outstanding debt. We noted that Mr and Mrs C (or their solicitor, on their behalf) should have taken steps at the time of the sale to ensure that the debt had been paid. We considered that there was nothing more that we could reasonably ask the council to do because, regardless of the error, Mr and Mrs C still owed them the money. Related reading View Decision Report 201103237 as a PDF (17.04 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had failed to prepare a development brief for a housing development near to his home. He was of the view that this was in breach of a policy in the local plan. This policy stated that the development must comply with an approved development brief prepared by the council. The brief was prepared by the developer, in consultation with the council's planning department. Prior to approval, it underwent a period of public consultation after which amendments were made to the brief and the revised document was considered for approval by the Planning Committee. Mr C considered that the developer's involvement in the preparation of the brief meant that it would be biased in favour of the developer. He considered that this was not what was required in terms of the local plan policy and he was also of the view that the council altered the terms of the development plan without following the correct statutory procedures. Although the developer was very involved in the preparation of the brief, it was prepared in consultation with the council. The council's Planning Committee had, following public consultation, the right to accept or reject some or all aspects of the brief. As a result, we were satisfied that the final document was prepared and approved by the council and that it was in compliance with the policy in the local plan. Related reading View Decision Report 201102482 as a PDF (14.1 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that the council failed to correctly assess the planning application for an extension to a neighbour's property, because the planning officer did not view the site from Mrs C’s property. She also complained that the planning officer did not have proper regard in his assessment to the measurements of the proposed extension, and that overdevelopment of the site has affected her privacy and amenity. We viewed the council's files and established that, although the planning officer did refuse to revisit the site to see it from Mrs C’s property, they had previously viewed the site and taken photographs. It was the council's practice for planning officers to decide the number of visits required before coming to a decision. We did not uphold the complaint, as there was no evidence that the assessment of the plannning proposal was not undertaken properly, and consideration was given to the representations made by objectors to the proposal. Related reading View Decision Report 201100059 as a PDF (13.85 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to carry out effective risk assessments when deciding to house a vulnerable adult in accommodation next door to his mother-in-law, Mrs A. He was of the view that the council also failed to deal with reports of anti-social behaviour by their tenant and by visitors to his home. Mr C also said that the council failed to provide any support to Mrs A following a fire at the neighbour's home and also failed to offer to pay for her insurance excess. Following our examination of the case we did not find evidence to suggest that the council failed to carry out appropriate risk assessments or that the neighbour had been housed in unsuitable accommodation. We also did not uphold the complaint that the council failed to investigate the concerns about anti-social behaviour. We found that the council had explained how Mrs A could make a claim to the council's insurers. We did, however, find that the council failed to offer any support to her after the fire. We considered that providing some support would have been appropriate under the circumstances and we upheld this aspect of the complaint. We recommended that the council apologise to Mrs A for this failing and also consider whether there is a need to introduce a procedure to deal with incidents such as this and to address the potential needs of elderly neighbours.