SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr and Ms C, who work for a law clinic, complained on behalf of Miss B about the care provided to Miss B's mother (Mrs A) and the charges for this care, including that there was a long delay in notifying Mrs A's family about the amount of accumulating arrears. Miss B said they had been unaware as a family that the transport taking Mrs A to day care was a chargeable service. She said that by the time the family became aware of the charges, Mrs A had used the service for around a year. When they became aware that the transport service was chargeable, they cancelled it. Miss B's complaints about delay and the lack of transparency were both upheld by the council. Miss B wanted to take these complaints along with the other issues she had raised to a complaints review committee (CRC), an independent body and the final stage of the council's social work complaints procedure. The CRC declined to deal with the complaints that had already been upheld by the council, saying they considered them to be resolved. We found it was unreasonable for the council to decline to deal with upheld complaints at CRCs. We found that it was for the complainant to decide whether, or to what extent, individual complaints had been addressed or resolved. We therefore upheld the complaint.

Mr C and his representative sought pre-application advice from the council before submitting a planning application for a property he wished to build. On the basis of the advice, Mr C submitted a planning application. Mr C complained about the council's handling of pre-application contact and the decision not to refer the application to a committee for approval. We reviewed the information received from Mr C, his representative for the application and the council, as well as the council's Pre-Application Advice Guidance Note and their Scheme of Delegation. We found that the council had not kept a record of consultations with Mr C's representative, including a site meeting. We upheld Mr C's complaint that they had failed to keep proper records of additional relevant advice given. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council failed to provide consistent advice at the pre-application and application stage, contrary to their guidance. We considered that the council had given a reasonable explanation for the meaning of the word 'qualified' within the guidance, explaining that the advice was not absolute. We did not consider that any recommendations were required as the council had already apologised to Mr C and taken action to remind staff of the importance of recording pre-application enquiries and responses and ensuring that this includes a standard disclaimer. Regarding Mr C's complaint that the council failed to follow their Scheme of Delegation, we considered that the council had provided a reasonable explanation for their decision and therefore did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201601484 as a PDF (11.28 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C raised a number of complaints about the council's handling of a planning application for a house on a plot neighbouring her own. She felt that the council failed to take account of her objections to the application, failed to properly assess the environmental impact of the development, recorded inaccurate site boundaries and incorrectly said in the planning report that there were no trees on site. We reviewed the evidence and found that the council had taken into account Ms C's objections when assessing the application. They noted the boundary dispute and correctly advised that this was a private legal matter. In addition they imposed planning conditions in order to protect Ms C's amenity. Although the planning officer said that the site had been cleared and Ms C said that one tree remained on the site, we took the view that the planning officer's description of the site was reasonable. In our view it was appropriate for the planning officer to highlight the site clearance to the council's bio-diversity officer for assessment. We were satisfied that the planning report was appropriate and we considered that the council had given reasonable consideration to the impact of the development on the environment. Related reading View Decision Report 201508684 as a PDF (11.15 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C raised a complaint with the council on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) regarding home care. As the complaint was regarding social work, it was progressed through the statutory social work complaints procedure and a complaints review committee (CRC) was held. Mr C complained about various aspects of the council's handling of his complaint. We found that while there had been a delay in the CRC being held, it was not unreasonable. We concluded that there was no evidence of bias. We were satisfied that the council had handled the request for the CRC to be recorded in a reasonable way. We were satisfied with the council's explanation regarding the effect of the power of attorney on the complaint and that the CRC had accepted Mr C was the power of attorney. Mr C had decided not to continue with the CRC and therefore they were not given the opportunity to consider the complaint itself at the meeting. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We did have concerns that the council had subsequently written to Mr C stating that they would not reschedule the CRC and referred him to the SPSO as this meant that the complaint that had been raised was not actually considered at CRC stage, which is a complainant's right under the statutory social work complaints procedure. We also had concerns that the council continued to correspond with Mr C following the referral to the SPSO after the CRC and treated his correspondence as a new complaint. We therefore made recommendations to address this.

Mr C complained to the council that, contrary to the terms of a planning consent, they had allowed an existing road to be 'grubbed out' before a new road was laid. He said that they failed to take enforcement action on this breach of consent and that they failed to take reasonable steps when he reported safety concerns about the new road access. We took independent advice from a chartered town planner and we found that when Mr C complained about the old road being removed, the council acted on his concerns and made two site visits. The council determined that the new road was acceptable in safety terms and, on this basis, declined to take enforcement action. This was a discretionary decision that they were entitled to take, so we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. However, although the council looked into Mr C's concerns about the new road access, they failed to give him a reasonable explanation as to why they did not intend to act on them. Because of this, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained to us about a meeting that the council had held about her son. She said that the minutes of the meeting were inaccurate and she wanted them to be destroyed. During our investigation, the council told us that they had destroyed the minutes and that the only copies that now remained were held by us and their complaints team. They also confirmed that the minutes had not been sent to Ms C's son's new school. When we discussed this with Ms C, she confirmed that this resolved her complaint and, in view of this, we closed her case. Related reading View Decision Report 201405212 as a PDF (10.81 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C’s home is next to a facility used for outdoor sports within a school campus. Mrs C complained to the council about noise nuisance from three all-weather pitches which can be hired by the public. She was concerned about noise from users shouting and swearing, as well as balls hitting fencing, which could be heard in her home and garden. Mrs C had previously brought complaints about the facility to us under case reference 201202858. As a result of a recommendation made following this earlier investigation, the council had taken measures to reduce the noise from the facility, including erecting a sound-reducing fence. However, in 2013, Mrs C reported to the council that the measures had not worked. The council took further action but Mrs C remained unhappy with the result. She asked us to consider her concerns that the council had failed to take reasonable steps since 2013 to address continued noise nuisance from the facility. After taking independent advice from one of our advisers, who is an environmental health specialist, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. The adviser commented that the council had not served a notice to the facility after the noise nuisance had been confirmed, and this was not in line with the relevant legislation. The adviser said that, as a result, the council had been left without a statutory means to ensure that the facility took appropriate action to reduce or stop the noise heard at Mrs C's home. We made a number of recommendations to the council about this matter.

Mr C complained the council had failed to respond appropriately to his report of a collapsing building. He felt they had not acted quickly enough in response to the original report, which had left the public at risk. He also complained that too much time had been given to the owners of the property to resolve the problem and the council had failed to use their statutory powers appropriately. Mr C said that when the council had taken action and demolished the building, they had left the site in a dangerous condition, inappropriate for a conservation area. He said that the council had also not taken account of the conservation area status that protected the site, by seeking the appropriate consents, despite the 12 months from his first report to the actual demolition of the site. He also complained that part of his boundary wall was demolished unnecessarily. Our investigation found the council had acted appropriately by giving the owners of the building a reasonable length of time to repair the problem, which would have avoided demolition in a conservation area. The building had continued to deteriorate and the council, acting on the advice of a structural engineer, had had no choice but to demolish the structure. Responsibility for the site remained with the owners and the council had gone beyond their statutory obligations in erecting flood defences. There was no evidence that the boundary wall had been unnecessarily demolished, as it had been taken down as part of making the site safe. Related reading View Decision Report 201306027 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was an objector to a planning application considered by the council's planning committee. He believed that the report on handling considered by the committee contained a number of serious errors which meant the committee had been unable to make an accurate assessment of the application. In particular, Mr C said that the correct planning policies had not been followed and incorrect advice had been given by the council's flood prevention officer on the flood risk to an access road. We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our adviser said the report on handling had presented an appropriately balanced view of the application and the relevant policies. He said the council had been correct not to include historic reasons for refusal, as they were not applicable to the application under consideration. Our investigation found that the council's flood prevention officer had acted proportionately in their assessment of the application and, specifically, the access road. Although the council had acknowledged an error in some of their correspondence, this was a matter of millimetres and they were entitled to take a view on whether this was materially significant. We also found the available evidence did not show the report's assessment of the access road was inadequate or inaccurate. Related reading View Decision Report 201402322 as a PDF (11.21 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that her 14 year old son had been shown a sex education video that was unreasonably graphic and that when she requested details about the content of the remainder of the course, these were not provided. As a consequence, she removed her son from the school's relationships, sexual health and parenthood (RSHP) course but complained that he was unreasonably treated by staff who she said tried to bully him to return. All the information provided by Mrs C and the council was given careful consideration but there was no evidence to show that the council had been unreasonable in their provision of information. Mrs C was offered the opportunity to see and discuss the material about which she was concerned and reassured that it had been approved by all local councils, the NHS and Police Scotland. She was sent leaflets and directed to a website for further information; they offered to give her a week's notice of subjects on the course concerned. While the school agreed that it was Mrs C's decision to remove her son from the sex education part of the RSHP course, they did not condone the fact that she removed him from the entire course and advised her that this was contrary to Education Guidelines. In the circumstances, they were entitled to write to her and talk to her son about his absence from class. There was no evidence that he had been bullied or put under unreasonable pressure. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407057 as a PDF (11.28 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained on behalf of Ms A. She said that Ms A had agreed to move out of her property temporarily in order to allow repairs to be carried out. Ms C said that Ms A had been told after she moved out that she would not be allowed to return to the property. In addition she said the council had placed Ms A's possessions in storage without her consent and had not handled them appropriately. Ms C said Ms A had discovered her possessions had been placed in front of her house. She said this included personal possessions, exposing her to ridicule as photographs of them were placed on social media. Ms C said Ms A believed her goods had been intentionally damaged. Our investigation found that, as Ms A had refused to allow the council access to the property, it was only following her move into temporary accommodation that it could be properly assessed. This assessment found that the property was not fit for habitation and posed a health risk due to severe neglect by Ms A. We found the council had acted appropriately by refusing to allow Ms A to return. Our investigation also found that the council had made it clear to Ms A that her goods would be placed in storage and that her agreement to this was on record. The council had acknowledged that some heavily soiled items of furniture had been left inappropriately outside, however, they had apologised for this. Storage had been provided as soon as possible and the evidence showed the contractors had been careful to identify personal effects, handing them over to the council for safekeeping. Related reading View Decision Report 201401233 as a PDF (11.33 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that he was refused the right to buy his council house. He moved there from another council property in 2004, which meant that his right to buy entitlement changed from ‘preserved’ to ‘modernised’. Mr C tried to buy his house in 2007. However, this was days after his area was classed as pressured, which meant that the modernised right to buy was in fact suspended. Despite this, the council initially – wrongly - accepted his application but Mr C withdrew because he could not afford to proceed. However, he now again wished to buy his house. The council acknowledged that they had wrongly accepted his application in 2007 but said their lawyers would have identified that the house could not be sold, had Mr C proceeded to the next stage. In addition, as the whole of Perth and Kinross became a pressured area in 2012 Mr C still could not buy his house. Our investigation found that in June 2006 the council told tenants (including those in Mr C’s postcode) that they planned to apply for pressured area status there with effect from 2 February 2007 and explained what this meant for modernised right to buy tenants. This also happened in 2012. Although Mr C said he had documents saying that he could buy his house after five years, he could not provide copies and the evidence indicated that his 2007 application was made after the suspension was in place. Although he withdrew that application, the evidence did not show that the council told him then that the sale could not have gone ahead anyway. We felt they reasonably could have been expected to do this. However, it was a fact that the suspension was in place when he applied to buy his house in 2007 and was later extended. While we recognised how significant this was for Mr C, our role was to consider whether the council had done anything wrong. Taking everything into account, we did not consider he was unreasonably denied his right to buy and we did not uphold this complaint. Mr C also complained th

Ms C complained to us about the council's decision to demolish a tenement building containing her three flats. She complained about the council's communication with her, and about the way they addressed the problems with the building. After reviewing correspondence between Ms C and the council, we did not uphold either of her complaints. We found no evidence that the council's communication was inappropriate. We also found that the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 permits the council to carry out urgent work, such as demolition, to reduce or remove a danger. Although we understood that she felt that they should not have done so in this case, this was a discretionary decision for them to make. We cannot question the merits of discretionary decisions unless we find failings, which we did not find in this case. Related reading View Decision Report 201404075 as a PDF (11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C, who are council tenants, complained that the council refused to answer their complaints, that they requested urgent maintenance/repair jobs at the property but that they themselves had to pay the costs, and that the council refused to carry out other work. They also complained that the council failed to deal with a neighbour's anti-social behaviour. In addition, Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the attitude of council staff, said that staff had been racist toward them, and were also unhappy that a member of staff taped a meeting with them. Mr and Mrs C believed that this was part of an organised council campaign against them and that the recording was authorised by senior managers. Our investigation found that the council had responded to Mr and Mrs C's complaints. Although Mr and Mrs C did not agree with their decisions, this did not mean that the council acted improperly. We found that the council had addressed the issue of discrimination robustly, but that Mr and Mrs C had provided no evidence of discrimination, other than their dissatisfaction with the council's services. The council had tried to investigate the complaint of anti-social behaviour, but had been prevented from doing so effectively because Mr and Mrs C had refused to cooperate with the investigation. We also found that the council had acknowledged and acted on requests for repairs, but progress had been slow because of the breakdown in their relationship with Mr and Mrs C. The council provided evidence that the works had been completed and that they had made reasonable efforts to engage with Mr and Mrs C to ensure this was done. Finally, they had already acknowledged that it had been wrong for Mr and Mrs C to be recorded. They had apologised for this and had taken action to stop it happening again. We found no evidence that this incident was organised or approved in advance by managers, and found that the council had acted quickly to address this when Mr and Mrs C complained. R

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably determined a planning application under delegated powers (where planning officers, in certain circumstances, may handle some applications), rather than referring the matter to a committee. He also complained that the planning application – which was retrospective – caused the loss of a local access route. As part of our investigation we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Mr C had understood that the number of objections to the application meant that a committee would have to make the decision on it. For example, he said that his wife had been told on the phone that each person who signed a petition would count as an individual objector, yet he said a petition against the application had been classed as a single objection. The council denied having said this, and in the absence of evidence of this we could not verify what had actually been said. Although Mr C felt that enough objections were made for the matter to be considered by committee, we did not uphold his complaint as our adviser was clear that the application was handled in line with the relevant policy. In terms of Mr C's second complaint, the adviser said that the planning officer's report had contained one apparent error but had handled the wider question of access appropriately. Although a materially significant error of fact could, potentially, have undermined the council's decision-making process, it was clear in the report that access through the site was considered. The report said that a neighbouring route provided sufficient access, while the relative weight given to factors was a matter of professional judgment, which we could not question where we saw no evidence of maladministration. In short, the adviser said that the council made a decision they were entitled to make, and viewed as a whole, we did not consider the evidence to be sufficient to call the council's wider decision-making process into question. Related rea

Miss C complained that the council did not give her accurate information about the availability of parking season tickets. Miss C said that she had been asking them for several years how she could obtain a permit to park near her retail premises. She said that the council had advised her that they did not issue business parking permits, only residential ones. Miss C was then told some years later that she could purchase a season ticket for the all-day parking areas. She said that this would have saved her money and wanted the council to reimburse her for the money she could have saved if she had a season ticket. We found that there was no evidence of the wording of Miss C's request for information and that the council, in saying that they did not supply business parking permits, had provided accurate information. We also found that the council's guide to parking provides details about the availability of season tickets and is available to the public. Miss C also complained that a neighbouring retailer had been issued with a free parking permit and wanted the council to explain this and issue her with the same permit. We found that the permit held by the neighbouring retailer was not relevant to Miss C's circumstances, and the council's position that they could not discuss another individual's details with Miss C was reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201306068 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had not dealt properly with his application for planning permission. He said that they had unreasonably declined to engage with him and respond to his pre-application enquiry, dealt with this as if it was a planning application for detailed consent (when it was for permission in principle), and that the reply to his complaint wrongly said that they had asked him for drawings of the elevation of his proposed building as part of the assessment of his planning application. We found that the council had responded to Mr C's pre-application enquiry and, although it might not have met his expectations of engagement with them, it did provide relevant advice. This service is discretionary and it was for the council as planning authority to decide what resources they spent on it. We found nothing to suggest that they had dealt with Mr C's application as if it was for detailed consent rather than in principle. However, it was unclear whether they had given him advice about providing drawings of the elevation of the proposed building, which suggested that their reply had been incorrect, and we upheld this element of his complaint.

Miss C complained that the council removed an oven, hob and laminated flooring from her former tenancy in spite of a council officer having agreed that they would be offered for sale to the new tenant, and that Miss C would remove them if the tenant did not want them. The council said the oven and hob had been taken to the recycling centre, but Miss C disagreed that this had happened and also said that they had thrown out items left outside the property, which she had intended returning to get. During our investigation the council accepted that there had been a verbal agreement about the hob and oven. They also admitted that they had made a mistake in that, when they were unable to contact the new tenant, they had not told Miss C, and had instead disposed of the items. They explained that the laminate flooring was damaged during the normal course of work and that they had the right to remove it, as Miss C had not done so before returning the keys. They said that the items left outside the house were disposed of after Miss C had returned the keys and stopped paying rent for the property. We upheld the complaint as the council had not kept to the verbal agreement they had with Miss C. However, as they had already apologised and had decided not to recharge her for the costs incurred when she moved out, we did not find it necessary to make recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201301805 as a PDF (11.25 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the way the council handled a planning application for an extension to the property next to hers. She said that the site visit was inadequate, and the plans and report inaccurate as they said her property was north, rather than west, of the proposed development. She said that this meant the council could not have taken full account of the impact of the proposed extension on the daylight and sunlight to her home. She also said that they had not taken account of guidance about overshadowing and loss of outlook, as there was no evidence that they had made full calculations of the proposal, as set out in that guidance. She also said that she was told that her complaint would be investigated independently, but the response came from the planning department, which she did not consider sufficiently independent. We reviewed the information from Mrs C and from the council, and took independent advice from our planning adviser. Our adviser said that the site visit was sufficient to establish the impact of the proposed extension on Mrs C's property, and provided enough information to decide the application. The plans were also sufficient for the council to have assessed the impact on the amenity of Mrs C's property, including the daylight calculations specified in guidance. He was critical that the council did not provide evidence of these calculations but, based on the planning report, he considered that they were assessed as part of the planning decision. On the basis of this advice, we were satisfied that the planning application was handled appropriately, although we did make recommendations. We also considered the communication that Mrs C had with the council, including an acknowledgement of her complaint and their final response. The council's procedure did not specify who should respond to a complaint, and there was no evidence of Mrs C being told who would do so. We considered that it was appropriate, and in line with policy, for the co

Mrs C complained to the council that her son's school had not responded appropriately to a playground incident. She said she should have been contacted but instead her son was sent home with a note in his bag. The council investigated but did not uphold Mrs C's complaints, and she was not satisfied with their response. Our investigation reviewed how the council had investigated and responded to her complaints. We found that, although they provided a reasonable explanation to Mrs C's initial complaint, their final response (at stage two of their complaints process) was confusing and the conclusions reached did not clearly follow from the explanations given. We upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mr C was unhappy when the council decided not to investigate his antisocial behaviour complaint beyond making initial enquiries. They said they did this because, under the Antisocial Behaviour Etc (Scotland) Act 2004, for such behaviour to exist it must involve this type of conduct on at least two occasions. In this case, the council thought that the incidents were so closely related that they comprised a single occasion. Mr C disagreed, saying that the instances of antisocial behaviour were separate and amounted to extreme antisocial behaviour. We explained to Mr C that we would not give a view on whether antisocial behaviour took place as that was a matter for the council – we would only look at how they implemented their antisocial behaviour procedure. Our investigation considered how the complaints were recorded, how the decision on them was taken, and how it was communicated to Mr C. We found that the complaints were recorded on the appropriate database, that the council’s decision took account of the relevant internal procedure and the Act, and that this was communicated to Mr C. This meant that the council had done as they should have and had implemented their procedure reasonably, so we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201302093 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C obtained planning permission to build a house and garage. After construction work began, a neighbouring property owner complained, and the council's planning enforcement officer made a site visit. The officer considered that there was a breach of one of the conditions of the planning consent, which required landscaping plans to be submitted before work started on the site. He also found that the building was not being constructed in accordance with the approved plans, potentially leading to an unacceptable increase in the overall height of the finished building. He advised the builders to cease work, then issued a temporary stop notice requiring all work to stop pending submission and approval of the required landscaping plans. The plans were later submitted and approved, and work recommenced, but Mr C encountered further delays when he was told that he would need approval from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) for his proposed drainage system. Mr C complained that the council were heavy-handed in their approach to planning enforcement and did not work with him to resolve the problems on site. We found that the council did not take formal enforcement action against Mr C's development. However, they did take reasonable steps to halt work on site to ensure that an acceptable building was being constructed. Although we were satisfied with their approach to planning enforcement, we were critical of their communication with Mr C. We found no evidence to suggest they consulted with him to check that parties were working to the correct set of plans. We also found that the council raised enforcement issues in a piecemeal fashion rather than providing Mr C with a comprehensive assessment of the development against what they considered acceptable. Finally, we found evidence of inadequate communication between the council's planning and building control services. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, we made two recommendations.

Mr C's elderly mother (Mrs A) suffers from vascular dementia (a common form of dementia, caused by problems in the supply of blood to the brain). Mrs A was in receipt of a meals service provided to her at home. The council had contracted with a company (the contractor) for the meals service, and the contractor had then sub-contracted this to a meals service provider (the provider). Mr C believed that his mother might have made unreceipted cash payments to the provider's delivery driver. Mr C complained that the council did not assess the risk of doorstep cash payments for users of the meals service. Mr C said that both the council and the provider had refused to allow him to pay by direct debit, while allowing users of the service to pay by cash on the doorstep. He complained that the council had failed to reasonably assess the risks of doorstep payments, particularly in the case of elderly and vulnerable service users. He pointed out that without receipts it was not possible to verify what payments were made. The council said that all appropriate capability and risk assessments, including security checks, were carried out and that their actions in respect of Mrs A had complied with their equality duties. They said they had not refused to allow direct debit payments - rather the provider did not have the facility for this. Following their investigation of Mr C's complaint, they said that the delivery driver now gave the recipient of the service a written receipt for cash and cheque payments. In Mrs A's case, the council also agreed to meet the full cost of the meals service with the provider and then recharge Mrs A for this. We were satisfied that it was a matter for the council, in consultation with the contractor and the provider, to create policies and procedures for the provision and operation of the service, including payment methods. However, we upheld Mr C's complaint as, although the council had carried out various assessments in respect of users

Mrs C and Mr D both owned property next to land for which a planning application for development was submitted and approved. During the period of consultation on the application Mrs C was given access to the council's planning file, including a business plan submitted as part of the application. Mrs C and Mr D submitted objections to the application, but work subsequently began on the development, including closing a road so that passing places could be built. Mrs C and Mr D both complained to the council that the report had not been reasonable in dealing with a number of council policies, national guidance and the business plan, that the passing places had not been built in line with council standards, that the road closure had not been undertaken in line with council guidance and that a letter Mrs C had submitted was not responded to within a reasonable timescale. The council responded saying that the report was reasonable, that Mrs C should not have been given access to the business plan, that the passing places and the road closure had been in line with relevant standards and guidance. They agreed that they had not met their service standards in regard to the response to Mrs C's letter. Mrs C and Mr D were not satisfied and raised their complaints with us. We looked at these complaints together. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the report had been reasonable, that the passing places had been built in line with the relevant standards and that the road closure had been undertaken in line with the relevant guidance. We did not uphold these complaints. We upheld the complaint about the time taken to respond to Mrs C's letter but, as the council had apologised for this and had reminded staff involved about their customer service standards to ensure that there was no recurrence of this, we made no recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201301000 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about a number of issues relating to the council's handling of enquiries he had made to them about the prospect of developing a plot of land he had purchased. In particular, he was concerned that the council had released his private email address and information to a councillor and a third party. He also said that the planning officer he had spoken to had acted incorrectly in giving pre-application advice; the council had not acted in an open and transparent way during a phone call about a proposal to place a tree preservation order (TPO) on a tree on the land; and that their action in placing a TPO on the tree was unreasonable. During our investigation we found no evidence to support Mr C's allegation that the council released his private email address or information to a councillor or third party. We were also satisfied that the planning officer acted correctly in relation to the advice offered. We did, however, take the view that it would have been helpful had the officer clarified that Mr C had the right to submit a planning application and obtain a formal decision from the planning authority. There was no evidence to support Mr C's concern that a member of staff did not act in an open and transparent manner during a phone conversation about the TPO. We also found that members of the public had written to the council requesting that a TPO be placed on the tree, and that it was appropriate for the council to take the action they did in putting a TPO in place. We were also satisfied that the TPO request was considered under the council's evaluation criteria. However, we did find that some of the terminology used did not reflect current TPO regulations.