SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained on behalf of their relative (A) and A’s child (B) about the health and social care partnership, of which the counil administered the complaint investigation. B was removed from A’s care. Following a short period of kinship care by B’s grandparent, they were placed with foster carers. C and their partner applied to be B’s kinship carers as soon as B was taken into care. However, they were not made B’s kinship carers until several years later. C complained that the partnership had unreasonably delayed in assessing their kinship care application. C also complained that there had been failures to facilitate B’s contact with their family, to address concerns about B’s foster carers, to provide them with support following B’s kinship care placement and to provide specified information. The partnership accepted that there had been delay in assessing B’s kinship care and identified learning from this. They did not identify any other service failures. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that there had been a failure to progress the kinship care placement timeously and to take reasonable steps to facilitate B’s family contacts. We also found that there had been a failure to provide specified information. We upheld these complaints. However, we found that there had not been a failure to address concerns about B’s foster carers or to provide C with support following B’s kinship care placement. We did not uphold these complaints.

C complained about two incidents involving their child (A) and another child at school. C said that child protection procedures should have been followed. We did not consider that C's complaint was a child protection matter and therefore child protection procedures did not require to be followed. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we considered that the school could have managed the incidents better, particularly in relation to their communication with A so that they felt supported and respected. C also complained that there was an unreasonable delay in the school advising them of the first incident. We considered that C was told within a reasonable period of time. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. C also complained about a refusal to allow them to take an audio recording of a meeting with the head teacher of the school. Whilst we appreciated why C wanted to record the meeting, we did not uphold this complaint on the basis that the head teacher was entitled to refuse this. We considered that the offer to bring someone to support C to the meeting and the opportunity to comment on a minute of the meeting afterwards to be reasonable. Related reading View Decision Report 201903957 as a PDF (24.23 KB) Updated: September 23, 2020

Ms C complained on behalf of her adult son (Mr A) regarding two specific matters. The first concerned child protection procedures that been instigated following concerns for children in Ms C's care. Ms C complained that the council unreasonably requested a police report on Mr A. The guidance for the protection of children in Scotland means that it was reasonable for the social work department, as lead agency, to request any police check on an adult in Ms C's home, given the information that had been reported to them by the children's school. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Ms C also complained that there was a failure to document the basis on which a police report was requested. Section 91 of the Child Protection guidance states that when information is shared, a record should be made stating the purpose and form in which the sharing occurred. The social work records did not contain any information on why the request was made and we considered this to be unreasonable. The police request was in a standard form but it did not include parameters on the request limited to the alleged incident and we considered that it would have been reasonable to expect that this information should have been documented. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. The second matter related to communication and access to social work services. Ms C complained that, despite being advised Mr A had a new social worker, there was a failure to advise Mr A of their name. Mr A was not transferred to adult services and therefore he would not have a named social worker. Mr A was not made aware of this and he was under the impression he would have access to a named social worker rather than the duty social worker. We found there was an unreasonable failure to communicate this. On balance, we upheld this aspect of the complaint. Ms C also complained that there was a failure to refer to adult services and carry out an assessment for Self-Directed Support, despite stating t

Ms C had concerns in relation to changes to the recycling system introduced by the council. Ms C told the council that she had a disability and needed reasonable adjustments in relation to the recycling system. The council took steps to visit Ms C and explain the changes to the system. Ms C remained unhappy and complained to the council. Her complaint was not upheld and the council concluded that there was no failure to provide reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Ms C was dissatisfied with this response and brought her complaint to us. Ms C complained that the council failed to consider her request for reasonable adjustments appropriately. Although we noted that council officers had attempted to assist and engage with Ms C, it was not apparent from the evidence available that the council had appropriately taken into account how Ms C's disability impacted on her ability to use the recycling system. We did not find evidence that the council considered the adjustments in a systematic way. We upheld Ms C's complaint. Ms C also complained that the council had not carried out an appropriate equality impact assessment in relation to the changes to the recycling system. We found that the council had performed equality impact scoping exercises at two stages during the implementation of changes to the recycling system. These assessments did not identify that the proposals would result in negative impacts on people with disabilities. We found that the council has acted in accordance with their guidance in relation to equality impact assessments. While we did not identify failings, we suggested that the council may wish to review their assessments in light of the evidence about Ms C's experience of the recycling system. We did not uphold this complaint.

Ms C complained about the decision to withdraw funding from her father's (Mr A) care home placement. The council believed Mr A had deliberately deprived himself of an asset in order to avoid paying fees. We had asked the council to review this decision; however, having done so, they upheld their original decision. We found that the council acted reasonably in their application of the relevant guidance on charging for residential care. The council was able to evidence that they were not required to prove that deprivation of assets was the primary motive in the disposal of an asset. The council was only required to show that it was reasonable to conclude from the available evidence that the deprivation of assets could have been a motivation. We found that the council could have reasonably reached that conclusion from the evidence and their decision was, therefore, reasonable. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201707958 as a PDF (23.75 KB) Updated: July 24, 2019

Mr C owned a flat in a block of properties. The council also owned flats in the same block of properties. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably charged him for a share of the repair costs to a communal path. We found that all owners have duties and responsibilities in respect of repairs and maintenance of shared parts of property, normally set out in title deeds. As owners, both Mr C and the council shared responsibility for communal areas. Given this, it was reasonable for the council to conclude that private owners, such as Mr C, should bear a proportion of the repair costs and be invoiced accordingly. We saw no evidence that Mr C was not responsible for paying a share of common repairs. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that the council failed to communicate reasonably with him about the communal path repairs. We found that the majority of the council's communication was reasonable. However, we found that the council's communication with Mr C about the availability of an inspection report should have been clearer. We upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable response to her contact about leasing a unit. Mrs C was in contact with the council's estates and planning departments in relation to leasing a unit in an industrial estate. It was found that Mrs C required planning permission to allow her to use the unit for a business that included a take-away element. Mrs C complained that throughout her contact with the estates department that they did not voice concerns over her use of the unit. Later, after her application for Change of Use was considered, she was informed that it was likely the estates department would refuse her application. We found that the council had not communicated reasonably with Mrs C. We considered that the estates department did not manage Mrs C's expectations with respect to the viability of the proposed use of the unit, despite having sufficient information. The council were correct to advise Mrs C to seek planning advice on the use of the unit. However, we were of the view that the council could have alerted Mrs C earlier to the possible issues with the takeaway element. Therefore, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of reports of anti-social behaviour that she had made about one of her neighbours. Mrs C felt that the council had failed to take sufficient steps to address her neighbours behaviour based on the information that was available to them. On investigation, we found that the council had followed their policies and procedures and appropriately investigated Mrs C's reports. However, they were limited in the action they could take, as Mrs C's neighbour was at that time believed to be a private homeowner. During the investigations, it came to Mrs C's attention that her neighbour may be privately renting the property and she reported this to the council. She did not have contact details for her neighbour's landlord and there was no record that the property was privately rented under the landlord registration scheme. This meant that the only options available to the council were to ask Mrs C to continue reporting any further incidents to build a body of evidence and refer both parties to mediation. However, Mrs C chose not to make any reports and did not feel it was appropriate to take part in mediation, so the council closed the case. As the council had correctly followed their policies and procedures, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201607740 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is a council tenant, complained to the council about a number of issues regarding his new property. He complained that the council failed to ensure that his property was made available in an appropriate standard of repair and that they failed to follow their housing allocations policy. Mr C also complained that he was provided with incorrect information about his entitlement to a decoration grant and about his utilities contract. He also said that he was provided with wrong information about anti-social behaviour complaints from a previous tenant, dog fouling and the council's handling of his complaint. Mr C was dissatisfied with the response from the council. He felt that the council did not properly investigate his complaints and that they failed to offer remedies to his upheld complaints. Mr C brought his complaints to us. We found that the council failed to follow their housing allocation policy as they did not offer Mr C a 'settling in visit' after he moved into his new property and that they failed to ensure that Mr C had the opportunity to choose his own energy provider. We upheld these complaints and recommended the council provide Mr C with a written apology for these failings. We found that the council have already taken steps to ensure that tenants are better informed about their arrangements with their energy providers and we have asked the council to provide us with an update on their improvements. We found no failing in the council's actions regarding the standard of repair in Mr C's property and the decoration grant. We found that the council acted appropriately regarding Mr C's complaints about dog fouling and the information provided to him about the previous tenant's complaints of anti-social behaviour. We also found the council's handling of Mr C's complaint to be reasonable. We did not uphold these complaints.

Mr C complained about a neighbouring dog owner who persistently allowed his dog to foul in the street. Mr C repeatedly contacted the council about this problem and made a formal complaint when this issue continued to occur. He was unhappy with the perceived lack of action from the council with no staff visiting his property to discuss this issue. He received a verbal response to his complaint over the phone and noted no improvement following this, so escalated his complaint. The council investigated the matter and partially upheld the part of Mr C's complaint which related to poor communication and the length of time to respond to his complaint. However, they did not agree that staff had misinformed him about the actions they could take. During our investigation we gathered information from the council, including their policies and procedures on dog fouling. We found that Mr C had made numerous reports of fouling to the council but they had not met with him or contacted him to discuss the situation. It was only once he made a formal complaint that he received a response and this was a delayed response to his complaint which was completed over the phone. The accompanying case note did not sufficiently outline what was discussed and this formed part of Mr C's escalated complaint. The council highlighted that their policy was not to issue a fixed penalty notice unless council officers had witnessed an offence, but the legislation does allow for exceptions to be made where strong, objective evidence is provided. However, this does not appear to have been explained to Mr C until almost four months after his initial report of an issue, and only then as part of the council's final response to his complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaints as there was a lack of contact and communication from council staff during the initial months when Mr C reported numerous incidents. There was also a delayed response to his complaint and the evidence to summarise the council's re

Mr C was unhappy with the council's handling of an incident involving his daughter (Miss A) and another pupil, in which Miss A ended up with facial and eye injuries and was off school for a week. Mr C did not accept that what happened was an unintentional clash of heads and he was dissatisfied with the help and support his daughter was offered at school following the incident. We found that the school took reasonable steps to find out what happened, by speaking to the staff involved, the other pupil, and to Mr C. It was clear that there were differing accounts of what had happened. The school did not formally interview Miss A, although they did put on record what she told a teacher immediately after the incident. By the time Miss A returned to school the matter had been referred to the police by Mr C and Miss A had been interviewed by them. We found that the council took a careful approach after the matter was reported to the police and did not do anything which might jeopardise any ongoing investigation. The evidence showed that both Mr C and the council placed importance on the investigation by the police. There was evidence that Mr C told the council on more than one occasion that a decision or conclusion had been reached by the police. We found no evidence that such a decision or conclusion was ever conveyed to the council. Mr C felt that the council did not take Miss A's account of the events into consideration fully. We found that the evidence did not show that Miss A's account was not believed, or that the other pupil's account was considered more reliable, but rather that a definitive account of events could not be substantiated because there were no witnesses. Mr C was dissatisfied that the council failed to take into account medical evidence of Miss A's injury. We found that the council's position, which was that such evidence should be evaluated by the police, was not unreasonable. Council officers would not have been in a position to evaluate t

Mr C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable action to protect him and other residents from what he said were excessive levels of noise from a scrap processing yard next to his home. Mr C considered the noise levels were a statutory nuisance and the council had failed to take appropriate action to address this. We obtained independent advice from an environmental health adviser. The complaints concerning noise levels had been long-standing and ongoing. We accepted that the council had carried out noise monitoring as a result of complaints received about the level of noise coming from the scrap yard since 2011. We were satisfied that the council had determined that a statutory noise nuisance was established firstly in 2011, and then again in 2012 and 2013. However, the council did not take enforcement action and serve an abatement notice until late 2013. The abatement notice was then suspended. We considered the council could and should have taken earlier action. We were critical of the council's failure to do so and of the significant delay in serving the abatement notice from the time when nuisance was first established in 2011. The council said that since the abatement notice was suspended they have continued to assess complaints received and have not found there to be any situation which warranted further enforcement action. However, we found it concerning that since the suspension a significant number of complaints about noise have been made. Although the council have said the noise levels were found to be excessive on only two of these occasions, it was unclear why the council have not taken further enforcement action. We considered the council failed to act reasonably in respect of noise nuisance that Mr C experienced at his home and made a number of recommendations to address this. Mr C also complained about the council's handling of concerns he raised about alleged soil contamination in his garden and at a nearby play park, which

Mr C complained to us on behalf of Miss A and Mr A, about the handling of a planning application and building certificates for a development close to their home. They said that the new house had tapped into their shared water supply pipe, and was causing a significant loss of water pressure and flow. They complained that the council should not have allowed this to happen, saying that it should have been evident through the planning and building standards procedures that water supply would be a significant issue. We took independent advice from one of our advisers on the requirements of planning and building standards in relation to water supply. Our adviser said that the planning process includes a consultation with Scottish Water, which had been undertaken. However, he said that the provision of water to a site was not a material issue in a planning decision, and that the consultation was a way to advise the developer of issues that might arise during the development process. He also said that building standards work to a set of regulations. These do not make any specific requirements about water provision for a development, other than in relation to access to water for fire-fighting, and requirements about lead piping. The developer is expected to consult with Scottish Water before applying for a building warrant, but again, this is on an advisory basis. We did not uphold the complaints, as we found that the council had taken appropriate account of water supply to the new development in their decisions within the planning and building standards procedures. We noted that accessing water from the shared supply pipe may be a civil, legal matter, and was not something over which the council had any control. Related reading View Decision Report 201305453 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his son (Mr A). Mr C was in dispute with the council about the level of support offered to his son, who is dyslexic, during his physics national 5 examination. Mr C said that the support was inadequate and did not assist Mr A and allow him to perform at the best of his ability. The council maintained that the support plan made and agreed for Mr A, informed by a psychological/educational report and Mr A's teachers, was fulfilled. The complaint was investigated and all the complaints correspondence and Mr A's support plan was given careful consideration. This showed that Mr A was to be provided with the use of a laptop, digital question papers and extra time and that these were available to him for use in his physics examination. However, Mr A had declined to use them. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201405814 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council's regulatory panel had granted planning consent for a radio mast in the garden of a neighbour despite having been given photographic evidence of the site which was out-of-date. Since the original photographs of the site were taken by planning officers a number of trees had been felled which Mr C said altered the screening of the site. Mr C was of the view that the council should have taken new photographs after the felling had taken place and should also have issued a new and updated report of handling to objectors to the development. In responding to the complaint the council said that the regulatory panel was fully aware of the felling that had taken place as the son of the applicant had informed them of the changes. In addition, an objector had written to highlight the felling and Mr C himself had spoken at the panel hearing and highlighted this issue. The regulatory panel chose not to visit the site or require updated photographic evidence as they did not consider it necessary to determine the application. We considered Mr C's complaint and found that the regulatory panel had been made fully aware of the felling which had taken place and had the opportunity to request further information. As they did not consider this was required, however, they determined the application. We also found that the council had no responsibility to issue a new and updated report of handling following the tree felling and that, even if they had, they would not be obliged to issue copies of this document to objectors. As we did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way these matters were dealt with by the council, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201402879 as a PDF (11.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us about the processing of a planning application. Mr C complained that the council had not considered all the relevant material considerations and had not conducted the Regulatory Planning Hearing in line with procedure. We sought independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our adviser was satisfied that the council had considered all the relevant material considerations and listed these in the officer's report and discussed them at the planning hearing. Our adviser was also satisfied the planning hearing had been conducted in line with procedure. In light of the advice received, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201405219 as a PDF (10.85 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C reported dampness in his property that he said was caused by the neighbouring council property. Council officers visited the site and tests were carried out on cavity wall insulation. An independent survey commissioned by the council found that the dampness did not come from the council property but said that the lack of a damp proof course at one location might contribute to moisture building up in a cupboard. The council said they would investigate the installation of a damp proof course and carry out the work required to put right the damp course issue. Mr C, however, disputed the survey report saying that it did not accord with what he and his partner were told by the workmen carrying out the tests. When the contractors attended to carry out repairs after the cavity wall tests, Mr C's partner sent them away, so they did not carry out damp proofing work. Mr C said that access to his property was not required to do this. He complained to the council about continuing problems with dampness and that council officers had not responded reasonably to his emails and calls. The council investigated and did not uphold his complaints, so he complained to us. Our investigation reviewed the survey reports and correspondence between Mr C and the council. We found that the council had clearly established that the dampness in Mr C's property did not originate from the council property. In an effort to help Mr C they had said they would carry out work on one aspect as a goodwill gesture, but they were then refused access to infill the inspection holes opened up when the independent survey was carried out. We found that the council should have been clearer about what they communicated to Mr C but they had confirmed the dampness was not coming from the council property and that they were not responsible for work on the property that Mr C owned. We did not uphold the complaint, but made a recommendation.

Ms C complained about how the council acted in response to her concerns about an aerial mast in her neighbour's garden, and about their handling of her complaint about this. We obtained independent planning advice on the complaint from one of our advisers. The council had decided not to take enforcement action against Ms C's neighbour, and taking into account the advice we received, we accepted that this decision was reasonable. The evidence, however, showed a number of failings by the council in handling Ms C's planning enforcement complaint. These included failing to provide a timely response, unreasonably acting on personal information and pre-warning Ms C's neighbour of the initial visit by the planning enforcement officer. On balance, we considered that the council did not act reasonably in respect of Ms C's concerns about the mast. In terms of the overall handling of Ms C's complaint, we were concerned that when Ms C indicated that she was dissatisfied with the service provided by the council's planning enforcement staff, the council in some of their responses failed to correctly recognise when her planning enforcement complaint became a formal complaint. It was only through Ms C's persistence that this was rectified. We considered that, given the significance of the overall complaints handling issue described above, on balance, the council failed to reasonably handle Ms C's complaint about the planning enforcement service.

Mr C said that during gale force winds the boundary wall between a council building and his home collapsed. The debris fell into his garden, damaging his property, and he made a compensation claim to the council. The company who handled this on the council's behalf turned the claim down, and Mr C complained to us that in doing so they followed an unreasonable process. He said that they did not consider all relevant evidence, failed to clearly and consistently explain the reasons for their decision and delayed unreasonably in processing his claim. Although we found that the company's record-keeping was lacking at some points, we found no evidence that they failed to consider all the evidence required to process the claim. Neither did we find the timescales in processing his claim unreasonable, although they should have written with an update during the early stages. They responded to Mr C's remaining enquiries quite promptly. The documentation confirmed, however, that the company changed the rationale behind their decision during the course of the correspondence. This would not have been unreasonable if new evidence had come to light. However, we could see no clear reason for the differing explanations. The company made no further enquiries and did not obtain new evidence after issuing their second decision letter, but continued with the change in their reasoning. They also failed to respond to one of Mr C's main arguments in support of his claim, although they had information about this from the council. There was no clear record of the company's actions in response to each of Mr C's communications, or of how this affected their decision-making. We were also critical because the council did not deal with this under their complaints procedure. The determination of liability would be a matter for the courts. However, a complaint about the administrative handling of a claim falls within the remit of the council's complaints procedure and should have been de

Mr C complained that the council failed to service his electric central heating system regularly or to a sufficient standard. He also was of the view that they were not qualified to carry out this work. In addition, he complained that the council did not respond adequately to his complaints of dampness in his home. When responding to his complaint, the council confirmed that his heating system was serviced annually, although they said that from a safety point of view this was not required by law. They acknowledged that there had been problems in the recording of one of the services carried out but this was corrected shortly afterwards. They explained that their officers were suitably qualified. In terms of the dampness, they inspected the property on a number of occasions and no dampness was found in the walls. In their view the problem resulted from condensation caused by a lack of heating, the storage of materials in bedrooms and poor ventilation. They carried out works to try and alleviate this and provided Mr C with advice on how to reduce the risk of condensation. As this did not resolve the problem, they agreed to re-render the exterior walls, as Mr C had requested. We found that, although there had been problems with the council's original heating contractors, Mr C's heating system was serviced annually from the start of his tenancy. We noted that the council had supervised the work of their officers to ensure that they were servicing heating systems correctly and we saw details of their qualifications. In addition, we noted that the council had responded to Mr C's complaints of dampness in line with their housing management policy, had carried out inspections and had taken steps to reduce the risk of condensation. Although we cannot say whether these steps will ultimately resolve the problem, as the council responded in line with their policies, and as Mr C's heating system was serviced annually by appropriately qualified officers, we did not upho

In December 2010 Ms C invited her elderly father to her home in England to spend Christmas with her. While he was there, he became ill and was not able to return to his home in the council's area. Ms C had to become her father’s main carer. He was assessed in February 2011, after which the council made free personal nursing care payments for him. Ms C then had considerable contact with the council over details of the care package, the number of hours awarded, the degree of retrospection of the award, and issues about respite care. Ms C first considered complaining to the council in October 2011, and eventually did so in February 2012. After completing its initial stages the complaint was considered at a complaints review committee (CRC) in August 2012, with Ms C participating through a video link. The recommendations of the CRC were reported to the council’s leadership panel in October 2012 and Ms C was informed of the outcome two days later. Ms C complained to us that the council’s handling of her complaint was unreasonable. Our investigation focused on five complaints handling issues. One related to information about the complaints procedure in October 2011, three were about delay (in dealing with an initial internal complaint, in supplying a form to request a CRC and a delay in convening that CRC and making recommendations to the appropriate committee) and the fifth was that a summary report did not include a full minute of the proceedings of the CRC. Our investigation found that there had been delay, and we upheld the three complaints relating to this, but we did not find evidence to support the other two complaints.

Mr and Miss C complained that a neighbour had constructed an entranceway that extended along the road verge to the entrance of a field that Mr and Miss C rent. They complained that this in effect increased the level of the verge, making it difficult to access the field with their vehicle and trailer. They also complained that the access road had resulted in a ditch being filled in and a field drain broken. Mr and Miss C felt that the council should not have allowed that part of the drive to be built and should take action to restore their access and fix the drains and ditch. They were also unhappy with the way the council dealt with their complaint. The council's planning and roads teams reviewed the case and explained that the area in question was not part of the original planning consent. They explained that an area such as this would not require planning consent and, providing it did not cause flooding to the public road, would not be a concern for the roads department. As a result of this, the council explained that they could not take action against the neighbouring developer and that this was, essentially, a private dispute between neighbours. Mr and Miss C remained dissatisfied with this response. We considered their concerns and reviewed the planning application details and roads legislation. We found no evidence to suggest that the council were in any way responsible for the changes to the verge. The site fell outwith the boundary area under which the planning permission was granted and, in itself, the area of tarmac concerned would not require planning permission. We also noted that the roads department would only take action where there was flooding to the public road. The council had inspected the site a number of times because of the complaint, and were satisfied that they could take no action to alter the access way. As the council were not responsible for the problems, and as they were unable to take enforcement action to alter the access

The council granted planning permission for a supermarket development opposite Mrs C's home. She was opposed to the development and had submitted objections during the planning application process. Her objections included concerns about the proposed development's impact on her ability to safely enter and exit her driveway, which is situated on a bend in the road, opposite the supermarket's access junction. Mrs C became aware that a transport assessment had been undertaken in relation to the development. On looking into this, Mrs C became concerned and complained that the council's actions in relation to this assessment contributed to what she considered to be an unsafe road layout. She said that the council allowed the developer to conduct traffic surveys at times when traffic was diverted away from the road being assessed. She felt the council accepted a substandard traffic assessment and approved the planning application without question and then failed to ensure that certain planning conditions were met. She also complained about the council's handling of her correspondence about this. We did not uphold most of Mrs C's complaints. The evidence that we examined in our investigation showed that no diversions were in place when the traffic surveys were carried out, and that the council had in fact considered the developer's traffic assessment to be substandard. They sought appropriate technical advice and worked with their adviser to ensure that amendments were made before planning consent was approved. We were satisfied that the council did not simply accept the proposals submitted by the developer, and we found that any outstanding issues were incorporated into conditions attached to the planning consent. That said, we found the council's record-keeping around this to be poor. We found the council's actions on the two planning conditions that Mrs C felt had not been met to be reasonable. In one case, the council had not acted on a recommendation from th

Mr C said that when he moved into his house, he was aware that affordable housing was being built on land behind it. He found out later that this was to be social housing. When building was completed, the council opened a link pathway between the two estates and Mr C said that since then he had been subject to antisocial behaviour from residents of the new estate. He considered that the path was the root of the problem, and asked the council to close it. His request was heard by the council’s leadership panel. It was initially intended that the item about his complaint should be held in private but, on the day, the panel took the decision to hold the meeting in public and he was not notified of this. We did not uphold the complaint. We found that, in deciding to recommend that the item be held in private, council officers took the view that there was a risk of potential victimisation of Mr C and of others requesting the closure of the lane. We also found, however, that the relevant legislation provides for the holding of council meetings in public, except where the council decides to exclude the public when considering an item that is likely to disclose exempt information. Decisions about whether to consider an item in public or private take place at council meetings. We accepted the view of one of the panel members that the matter was of some local interest and that it would have been inappropriate to hold it in private as it had been discussed several times at tenants' and residents’ association meetings. We also accepted the council’s explanation of why it would have been remiss of them to have encouraged attendance at a meeting where the original decision for discussion in private had been taken to protect the residents making the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201104975 as a PDF (11.52 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C submitted an application to erect a wind turbine. After he submitted the application, an airport objected on the basis that the wind turbine would create clutter on their radar displays. Mr C complained that the council did not give him reasonable advice before he submitted the application. He said that the airport told him that the council had a map of the areas where the airport would object to development. He said that the council had not told him of the likelihood of the application being rejected on this basis. He asked that the council refund his application fee. Our investigation found that Mr C had not requested pre-application advice before submitting his application. There was no evidence that he had discussed the application with a planning officer. Although he had discussed the application with an administration assistant at the council before it was accepted as valid, this was about some further information that was required. We also found that the map used by the council was to assess whether a particular airport or similar body should be consulted about a planning application. The map should not be used to assess or pre-empt what any response to such a consultation might be. We found that the council had acted reasonably in this case. We did not uphold the complaint and did not recommend that the council refund Mr C’s application fee. Related reading View Decision Report 201103335 as a PDF (11.31 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018