SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to investigate and respond appropriately to incidents of bullying behaviour towards their child (A). C raised concerns about an incident where A’s private information was accessed by other pupils, and about the school’s implementation of a plan to help support A. C also complained about the way the school had handled previous concerns of bullying behaviour directed towards A. The council noted that A’s information had been accessed and investigated the circumstances, but acknowledged that C did not accept the most likely explanation. However, the council recognised that the school had not supported A as they would have wished and upheld parts of the complaint regarding the support offered to A and the failure to implement an agreed support plan. C was unhappy with the council’s response and brought their complaint to our office. We found that, whilst the school had reasonably investigated incidents relating to the accessing of A’s private information, the record keeping of the investigation and response to the incident was unreasonable. In addition, we found that the school had failed to record behaviours A experienced as bullying, failed to record incidents on the appropriate systems and did not appropriately record actions taken in response to bullying behaviour. We found that the council could not adequately evidence the supports in place for A, or actions taken in response to bullying concerns. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint. Under our general powers to investigate and consider complaints handling we determined that the council’s investigation of C’s complaint was unreasonable given that it had not identified the issues of unreasonable record keeping during the investigation. We made a recommendation to address this.

C cares for their spouse (A) who has Alzheimer's disease. C complained about the council's social work department, after they took action under their Adult Support and Protection (ASP) procedures, including obtaining a warrant to remove A from home. C complained that false allegations about them resulted in the warrant being issued and served. They complained that social work staff had presented unsubstantiated claims of neglect and abuse during the ASP proceedings. We took independent social work advice. We noted that there was evidence that C was experiencing stress in their caring role and that there was a difficult relationship with social work. We noted that there were periods during which A was locked in the house alone and C had mentioned that A may have bruising on them and would not allow access for a GP to assess A at that moment in time. We found that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the council had a statutory duty to investigate the circumstances and put in place an action to safeguard A's welfare. We found that the council followed the ASP process reasonably, seeking input from C and relevant professionals. A number of actions were agreed to ensure that both C and A had the support they needed in place and once it was established that the appropriate support was in place the ASP process was ended. We were also satisfied that it was reasonable for certain meetings to take place without C and A's involvement. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint. C also complained about the council's communication in respect of these matters. We found that the council had attempted to communicate clearly and openly with C. We considered that the circumstances themselves and the stress and anxiety involved likely contributed to a breakdown in communication. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202002441 as a PDF (24.74 KB) Updated: May 24, 2023

C complained that social work failed to reasonably assess A’s needs following a hospital admission, in relation to whether they required 24-hour care, and C’s concerns that social work ignored clinical opinions. We took independent advice from a social worker. We considered that it was reasonable for social work to have concluded initially that A did not technically meet the criteria for residential care and was functionally fit to be discharged home with a support package. While we noted that the opinions of others were taken into account in arriving at this conclusion, we considered that there was a failure to fully examine the emotional impact on A of potentially being discharged. The council had already acknowledged that there could have been more detailed discussion with A’s GP and further exploration of the views of a specialist nurse from the psychiatry team, which we agreed with. We also considered that some wording used in the social work assessment to describe A’s reactions could have been perceived to lack empathy and compassion. We upheld this complaint. A suffered a stroke three days after the initial social work assessment was concluded. They were in temporary accommodation at the time, awaiting further assessment. It was subsequently agreed that A required 24-hour care. They remained in the temporary facility until their transfer to a care home, but died a month later. C complained that a delay in social work re-assessing A delayed their transfer to a care home, which meant the transfer took place during lockdown when the family were unable to support A with the move. The council advised that A was re-assessed in a timely manner once a care home vacancy became available. We considered that it was reasonable for the assessment to be updated once a vacancy arose and were satisfied that the delay was due to a lack of available places and not due to a failing on the part of social work. We did not uphold this complaint.

C complained about the council's social work involvement with their child (A). A had a range of conditions that affected their development and behaviour. A was placed in residential care and was made subject to a legal order via the children's hearing system. A was transitioning out of children's services and into adult services. C raised a number of concerns with the council about the support provided by the council when arranging A's transition. Whilst the council upheld aspects of C's complaint, C remained dissatisfied with the council's response and brought their complaint to us. C felt that some aspects of the council's response were unclear, that they had not taken responsibility for what had gone wrong, and that they misunderstood some of the family's concerns. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council could have done more to facilitate clear communication with C and to involve C in A's care planning and assessments. We also found that the council unreasonably excluded C from certain aspects of the decision-making process for A. We upheld all of C's complaints.

C complained that the council failed to provide kinship care allowance after they had moved into the area from England, despite them having custody of their grandchild through a Residence Order (a court order which determines where a child should live) from an English court. The council had refused on the basis that they considered the English council should be responsible for the cost of the allowance, unless and until the Residence Order was confirmed by a Scottish court. C was also concerned that the council had failed to provide appropriate support to them and their grandchild. We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that, apart from a delay of a couple of months when C first applied for assistance, the council had acted appropriately, and that the order in question was not one that was transferrable between England and Scotland. As such, we did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201901597 as a PDF (24.17 KB) Updated: June 23, 2021

Mr C was the owner of a property which included a parking space noted in the title deeds. Subsequently, Mr C installed a collapsible parking pole to prevent others parking in the space. The council issued a notice to Mr C requiring that he remove the parking pole. The council advised Mr C that the road had been adopted as a 'public road', which meant control of the road rested with the council. Mr C disputed the council's position and pointed towards the council's inability to provide a complete copy of a technical drawing which accompanied a road construction consent form. He considered that this meant that the council could not demonstrate that the parking space was part of the public road. Mr C complained about the council's decision to require him to remove the parking pole. We found that the council has discretionary power to require removal of something placed in a public road causing obstruction. Mr C had not been granted consent in writing to install a parking pole in the parking space he owned. We found no maladministration in relation to the council's decision-making in this matter. We did not uphold this complaint. Mr C also complained about the council's investigation into a missing technical drawing. We found that a black and white copy of the drawing was available and this had evidentiary value in the council confirming which areas were originally intended to form part of the adopted road. We also found that a separate document consisted in the main record for delineating adopted areas. We were satisfied that the steps taken by the council to search for the document were reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201900074 as a PDF (24.46 KB) Updated: July 22, 2020

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a new development. Mr C said that the council did not undertake an independent transport assessment, and did not fully take into account the numerous objections raised, particularly about traffic and road safety. Mr C said that the council used the wrong guidance in assessing the traffic capacity of the road, and did not take into account relevant Scottish Government policy. The council said that the consultation responses were considered in detail in the report of handling, and they also met with objectors (including Mr C) to discuss his concerns. They said that the relevant policies had been taken into account, and the guidance used to assess road capacity was appropriate. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found evidence that the written consultation responses had been taken into account, and objectors (including Mr C) also had the opportunity to speak to the planning committee who made the decision. We considered that the guidance used to assess traffic capacity was appropriate, and there was evidence that the council had also taken into account relevant Scottish Government policy. While the transport assessment was carried out by the developer (not the council), this is standard practice, and the council had agreed the scope and reviewed the result. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201810995 as a PDF (24.32 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mr C complained that his late mother (Miss A), who stayed in a council owned care home, was not provided with appropriate care in relation to monitoring her prior to and after a fall in which she broke her arm. He also complained that the council failed to appropriately communicate with him regarding Miss A's condition. In response to Mr C's complaints, the council identified that there had been some failings in recording. They provided us with an action plan for improvements to be made, and a new policy in relation to falls. On reviewing the council's policies and guidance alongside Miss A's notes, we found that when she fell and complained of pain in her arm, there was a failure to immediately seek urgent medical opinion as per the council's policy. We also found that the falls risk assessment had not been reviewed as often as was specified by guidance. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, however, considered that the council's new falls guidance would, if followed, prevent a recurrence of these events. In relation to communication with Mr C about Miss A's condition, we found that Mr C was not Miss A's recorded next of kin and that there was no policy that required Mr C to be contacted by the council. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C raised concerns with the council about revisions to a local bus route and the turning manoeuvre buses performed outside his house as part of the revised route. He considered that this was unsafe and that the revision, which included the turn, should not be permitted. Mr C also raised concerns that, given the number of buses performing the turn every day including in the early morning and in the evening, this posed risks in terms of public health and created a noise nuisance. The council communicated with Mr C regarding these issues, noting that they did not have any concerns regarding the turn and had not raised this with the bus operator. After an exchange of correspondence the council agreed to carry out an observation and assessment of the turn. Following this, they concluded that they did not have any concerns and would not look to prohibit the turn. Mr C was not satisfied with the response and brought his complaint to us. Mr C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to follow correct procedures when permitting the revision to the bus route. We found that the council had considered the revised route when it was proposed by the bus operator. We concluded that it was reasonable for the council not to have raised any concerns with the bus operator, given that the turn was not against road traffic law, and that existing bus routes already carried out the same turn. We found that the council responded appropriately when it agreed to carry out an assessment of the turn following Mr C's concerns. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council failed to follow correct procedures in permitting the bus route. Mr C also complained that the council failed to respond to his complaint in accordance with their obligations. We found that the council failed to respond to his concerns under their complaints handling policy. In addition, we found that they failed to signpost him to the council's environmental health team to consider his complaint

Mr C complained about the council's handling of roads consent on the housing estate he lived in. He told us that the roads were still not fully complete, despite the three year roads consent period having expired a number of years ago. Under roads consent legislation, roads authorities (in this case the council) are supposed to secure a bond or deposit from any developer seeking to construct a road when issuing consent. The developer then has a three year period to complete the road before the consent expires. Come the expiry date, councils are either supposed to formally extend the consent or, if the consent expires, use the security bond or deposit to complete the works. In response to our enquiries, the council confirmed that the works in question were now complete, but accepted a number of failings in this case. They explained that they had not ensured that security bonds or deposits were received for all the roads in the estate before issuing consent. While they took steps to pursue the developer for the missing bonds, by the time they sought to take formal action in this respect, some houses were completed and occupied. This meant that they were unable to close or divert the roads, which would be their normal recourse in this situation. They also failed to ensure that the consent was formally extended. Normally this would have meant that they would be responsible for completing the works. However, this was complicated by the failure to secure the necessary bonds or deposits and also by a planning condition, which specified that the permanent road surface was not to be completed until all building works were complete. This only took place within the last few months, at which point the council took steps to ensure the roads were completed as soon as practicable. The council explained that they had implemented a number of procedural changes to ensure that similar mistakes were not repeated in future. This included: ensuring that security bonds are rece

Mr C complained about the council's handling of assessments of his business following the imposition of a remedial action notice under the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 2006. He also complained that the council incorrectly registered his business and failed to correct this within a reasonable time-frame. The council inspected Mr C's business and served a remedial action notice. Mr C said he sought to comply with the notice, but that the council continuously changed what was being required from him. He also said that the council failed to take into account the expert views of a food hygiene consultant who was assisting him to comply with the notice. Finally, Mr C said it had emerged that the council had not managed his earlier application for registration correctly. After reviewing submissions from the council and Mr C we found that the council had relied on the professional judgement of their officers in assessing compliance with the remedial action notice. We found that there was extensive correspondence between the council, Mr C, and his consultant. In this correspondence we saw evidence that the council had taken into account opposing views, and had sought to explain their position. There was no requirement for the council's officers to reach the same view as Mr C's consultant. While Mr C had said that the council had shifted what was being required, we found that the correspondence suggested that the council were seeking to explain what evidence they needed to be satisfied that compliance had occurred, and not that they were changing what they were asking for. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council had failed to assess his business reasonably following the imposition of the remedial action notice. Regarding Mr C's complaint about the incorrect registration of his business, the council acknowledged that there had been problems in the handling of applications. They explained that they had not requested the appropriate form from Mr C at

Mr C raised concerns that the council had failed to investigate and act on alleged breaches of a planning condition. The planning condition had been imposed by the council to offset the impact of traffic to build and service a new development. The council accepted there were shortcomings in how the planning condition was framed, which later made it difficult for them to enforce it. We took independent advice from a planning adviser, who agreed that the planning condition was not sufficiently precise. The planning adviser considered the council had taken reasonable steps to investigate and act on alleged breaches of the planning condition, however the shortcomings in the framing of the planning condition limited the action they could take. The planning adviser considered that safeguarding residential amenity should have been a cited reason for imposing the planning condition, as well as road safety. In light of the failings identified in the drafting of the planning condition, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C raised a number of concerns relating to the planning situation at an adjoining farm. In particular, she complained that the council had failed to ensure all planning conditions attached to planning consent for the erection of four houses were enforceable. She also complained that the council failed to follow planning procedures in relation to a planning application for a replacement shed on land owned by the farm and that incorrect information was contained in the officer's report for another planning application for the same site. We took independent advice from a planning adviser, whose advice that the planning condition did not meet the standards of precision and reasonableness we accepted. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint and recommended that a full and unreserved apology be issued to Mrs C. We also found that while the officer's report lacked detail, there was no evidence that the council had failed to follow planning procedure, and we did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint. The council also accepted that the officer's report had contained some drafting errors, and while we were mindful that a site visit had been carried out during which the planning officer would have seen the actual position when assessing the planning application, we found that the errors should have been corrected prior to determination of the planning application. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Ms C complained to us about the council's handling of an application made by a neighbour for consent to carry out works to trees on Ms C's property which were subject to a tree preservation order (TPO). In particular, Ms C complained that the council failed to carry out a proper assessment of the trees, failed to ensure the trees in question were identified in the permission given by the council and failed to ensure the application for consent met the requirements of the TPO. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. While we were satisfied that in considering the request for permission to carry out work to trees on Ms C's property that were overhanging the neighbouring property the council acted in line with legislation, we were concerned about the adequacy of record-keeping and the lack of a publicly available register of applications submitted. We were also concerned that the council had failed to refer to the works approved in the decision to the application and that they had failed to ensure the applicant had provided a plan or map sufficient to identify the trees on which permission to work was being sought. We therefore upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mr and Mrs C complained to the council about the treatment their child received from the head teacher and another teacher at their school. Their child has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and has additional support needs. Mr and Mrs C were concerned that this was not being properly taken into account by the school. The council investigated but concluded there was no evidence to support Mr and Mrs C's concerns about unfair treatment or bullying by staff. Mr and Mrs C said the investigation was not impartial and complained about how it had been carried out. The council did not respond to this complaint. During our consideration of these complaints, the council wrote to us and acknowledged a number of issues with their original investigation and response to Mr and Mrs C's complaints. They identified five recommendations that they were taking forward as a result of their review of the case. The council also advised that Mr and Mrs C's later complaint about how the council's investigation was carried out had not been responded to appropriately. We considered that the failings identified in the council's investigation amounted to maladministration and we upheld both of Mr and Mrs C's complaints. We made a number of our own recommendations to address the issues identified.

Mr and Mrs C complained about the ongoing bullying their son had experienced over a number of years at his school. After several meetings with school staff, Mr and Mrs C complained to the council that the school were not providing a safe environment for their son. They said that not enough was being done to respond to their concerns for their son's welfare and that the issues affecting him continued. Our investigation found that Mr and Mrs C's son had suffered from bullying behaviour. The council provided evidence of the action being taken in response to the reports of bullying behaviour and that the situation was being monitored. We were concerned that there was a lack of records in relation to the various meetings held with Mr and Mrs C since 2012 when they first reported their concerns. The council provided evidence that records of meetings were now being held and all incidents had been reported and had been investigated where there was sufficient information to do so. The council explained that it was important that all alleged incidents were reported at the time they took place so that the school could follow these up at the time. The council explained that when information was inaccurate or out-of-date, school staff struggled to investigate allegations. Mr and Mrs C also complained that the council had failed to investigate and respond to their concerns. Based on the available evidence, we were satisfied that the council had agreed the points of concern and had carried out an investigation in line with their complaints process. Related reading View Decision Report 201400853 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C told us that when she and her son (Mr A) moved onto a caravan site they were told by the site owner it was an all-year-round residential site. They later found out that there was a site licence condition which limited residency to eight months per year. Mrs C and Mr A said that when they went to register to pay council tax, the council should have alerted them to the licence condition. We accepted the council's position, which was that the site licence condition was not of significance in relation to council tax liability. Officers responsible for council tax only had to establish whether the caravan was occupied as Mrs C and Mr A's main or only residence. The council said, and we agreed, that the terms of Mrs C and Mr A's lease or rental agreement was a matter between them and the site owner. Mrs A and Mr C said a council officer came on site without good reason and discussed their private business within hearing distance of other people. We found that the council officer did not show his identification when he went on site and we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. The council had already apologised for this. Mr A refused to speak to the council officer. Mrs C and Mr A said that there was no need for the council's visit as they had already been to the council office to tell the council that they were moving and where they were going to. The council confirmed the visit but said Mrs C and Mr A did not provide a forwarding address. We found that the council were entitled to visit the site either to check the information they were given or to get further details. In this case they needed a forwarding address and to confirm a leaving date so they could end the council tax liability. We found, on balance, that there was not enough evidence to confidently say whether Mr A's private business had been discussed in front of other people and, therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201500516 as a PDF (11.45 K

Mr C complained that a council officer unreasonably barred his entry into a public event that was being held in a council facility. He also complained that the officer's behaviour at the time was inappropriate. He then complained to the council about this incident but was dissatisfied with their investigation and response. He said that they had not explained the complaints process to him, and they had not interviewed the only independent witness to these events. We considered the investigation carried out by the council and noted that they had given Mr C information about the complaints process and asked for contact details for his witness by email. We noted, however, that one of these emails was returned undelivered as the email address, despite being correct, was not recognised. We were satisfied that they had properly investigated his complaint and asked for the witness's details, which Mr C had not originally provided. We also noted that council staff were entitled to take action where they consider that their staff are likely to be subjected to unacceptable behaviour by a member of the public, and that this complied with the council's unacceptable actions policy and their policy on dignity and respect in the workplace. We found no additional evidence to support Mr C's claim that staff had behaved inappropriately when barring him from the event. For these reasons, we did not uphold his complaint. However, we did recommend that, for the sake of completeness, the council now contact his witness to see whether his recollection of events would affect their decision on Mr C's complaint. We also recommended that they ensure that all incidents of unacceptable behaviour by members of the public are properly recorded in line with their own procedures.

Between 2007 and 2012, Mr C said he lived in five different properties in the council's area. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to refund him overpaid council tax at one of the five properties and instead used the money for his outstanding council tax liabilities at the other properties. Mr C questioned the dates the council said he was resident at the properties as he said for much of the time he was in prison. Our investigation established that the council were entitled to offset an overpayment of council tax at one property to settle an outstanding amount on another property. However, we would have expected the council to take appropriate steps to ensure their calculations were accurate prior to doing so. The council provided us with copies of the documentary evidence they relied on regarding the dates of Mr C's tenancies and the dates he was in prison. This information was supplied by Mr C and the owners of the properties where he resided and it was therefore reasonable for the council to have relied on this. However, we had concerns about the council's handling of the issue. There appeared to have been failings in the way in which Mr C's council tax liability was calculated which meant a refund of overpaid council tax may have been payable to Mr C from the outset. There also appeared to have been discrepancies in the start dates for one of Mr C's tenancies and the transfer of monies to this account. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C's child went missing while using the school bus service. Mr C complained that his child was put at risk because the driver did not know which children were travelling on the bus that day and did not check when asked by Mr C's wife (Mrs C) to make sure that her child was not on the bus. Mr C complained to the council that the bus driver had not followed procedures. The council had investigated his complaint, and although they made recommendations to improve their school bus service, they found that the driver had followed the procedures in place at the time of the incident. Mr C said that he was not confident in his child using the bus service to and from school because he did not believe that the council had investigated the matter properly. He complained also that the council's recommendations had not been implemented, and he did not believe, therefore, that adequate controls had been put in place to ensure that a similar situation did not occur. Our investigation found no evidence that the council's investigation into Mr C's complaint had not been conducted in accordance with the council's complaints procedure, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, the council had told Mr C that as part of their investigation, they would interview him and this did not happen. The council told us that there had been sufficient information in a statement made by Mrs C at the time of the incident to uphold Mr C's complaint without further interview. The council had failed to make this clear to him and we made recommendations for an apology to be given to Mr C about this. We understood Mr C's concern that there should not be a recurrence of what had clearly been a serious and distressing incident involving his child. Our investigation found that the council had not given Mr C and his wife sufficient advice about the changes being made, or provided him with clear and consistent advice about the progress and timescale of the implementation of the recommendations.

Mr C was staying in homeless accommodation provided by the council. He said that, although he did not wish to leave, his place there was cancelled because he had been spending time elsewhere. The council put his belongings into storage, but did not take an inventory. He complained to us that the council acted unreasonably in not accepting arrangements he made for his belongings to be delivered to a family member, and in disposing of his belongings without compensating him for the loss. After we discussed this with the council, they told us that they were reviewing their practices about storage, and agreed to resolve the complaint by meeting Mr C's claim for loss of his belongings. Mr C was happy with this outcome. Related reading View Decision Report 201305831 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's investigation into a complaint he made about his child's primary school. His complaints included that the school did not put in place necessary meetings and that the council did not investigate his complaint properly. He also said that the council did not discuss his complaint with him before coming to their conclusions. We found that some of Mr C's concerns were not complaints of service failure or maladministration, rather he disagreed with actions taken by members of staff, and their decisions. In addition we found that one of his complaints was premature as he had not put it to the council. We did not look at any of these matters. In considering the complaints that we could look at, which were about the meetings and the council's complaints investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints as we found that meetings were held, and that the council investigated and contacted Mr C appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201303731 as a PDF (10.98 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of a building warrant and completion certificate issued for their property in 2001. Their concerns related to the foul drainage and surface water drainage systems at the property. Mr and Mrs C complained that the completion certificate should not have been issued as the drainage system built did not comply with the building warrant. In particular, they complained that the drainage system was not wholly contained within their property. They also complained about the council's handling of their representations. During our investigation we were satisfied that the council had considered and had responded to the issues raised by Mr and Mrs C. They had explained that changes could be made to the plans without the need for an amendment to the building warrant, as long as the new layout complied with the relevant regulations, and that the building regulations did not require drainage systems to be wholly contained within individual properties. The council confirmed that it was the professional judgement of officers that the requirements of the building regulations had been met, and that the revised drainage had been inspected and tested. We were also satisfied that the council had considered and responded to Mr and Mrs C's representations. Related reading View Decision Report 201205173 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the development process after a development close to his home was given planning permission. He said that the permission granted was subject to twelve conditions as the site concerned was both prominent and beautiful. Mr C said that the developer ignored a number of the conditions and that although Mr C complained, the council had failed to take enforcement action and had been 'soft' on the developer and his agents. The complaint was investigated and all the relevant documentation and the complaints correspondence was taken into account. Independent planning advice was also obtained and taken into consideration. Our investigation found that the development was complicated because of the nature of the site, but that the council had closely monitored it. While enforcement action was considered because of problems with adherence to the conditions, the council opted to progress this by negotiating with the developer, as they had the right to decide to do. Our adviser confirmed that this was a reasonable approach for them to take. We also found that the council had looked at all Mr C's complaints and, where necessary, had raised his concerns with the developer. Related reading View Decision Report 201302423 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained to us about the council's actions in relation to planning permission that they granted for an agricultural building. She said that they had failed to take into account a legal agreement they had made with the applicant a number of years before. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the council had considered the legal agreement, but were entitled to decide not to take any action against the applicant in relation to it. Mrs C also complained that the council failed to give the environmental impact of the application the level of scrutiny required by their policies and relevant plans. We considered that the environmental impact had been adequately assessed, and that they had not been required to consider alternative sites for the building. Although in their report on the matter the council had not listed a policy that was particularly relevant to the application, and we upheld Mrs C's complaint about that, we found that they did consider the issues in the policy during the application and so the omission did not appear to have affected the outcome. We also found that, other than this, they had presented the relevant information. In addition, we found that they engaged reasonably with local residents who objected to the application. Finally, Mrs C said that the council had failed to take action against the applicant for misleading consultees during the pre-planning consultation process. We found, however, that it had been reasonable for them not to do so. There are no provisions in planning legislation for such action and the only redress for any issues arising from the pre-application consultation stage is through consideration of how these may have affected the merits of the application once it is made. Related reading View Decision Report 201301822 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018