Monday 19 October: Complaint form offline

The supplier of our case management system has confirmed that they are experiencing a significant technical issue.

At present, we have no access to the case management system and we are currently unable to provide updates on existing cases.

We are planning on the basis that this could continue for a period of time including for the remainder of this week.

If you would like to check if your complaint is ready for the SPSO or enquire about making a new complaint, please complete our Complaint Checker.  

Please be assured we are doing all we can and will provide updates on our website. 

For an all service update: Service update | SPSO

Decision report 201200456

  • Case ref:
    201200456
  • Date:
    September 2012
  • Body:
    East Dunbartonshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    handling of application (complaints by opponents)

Summary

Mr C alerted his local council that his neighbour had undertaken development without planning consent. The council investigated and required the neighbour to apply for retrospective planning consent. Mr C took the opportunity to make representations about the development, and the council confirmed that these would form part of the assessment which would be carried out before the application was determined. The council notified Mr C of their decision but he complained that this had been taken without visiting his property to view the development from his perspective and said that the council had not been impartial in their handling of the matter.

During our investigation we took advice from one of our planning advisers. He said that a planning officer can form a judgement about neighbouring properties from visiting the development site. Visiting every property is not practical, bearing in mind that there could be multiple objectors, and the planning adviser agreed that this was a matter for a planner's professional judgement. We did not uphold the complaint, as there was no evidence that Mr C’s representations were not fully considered, and the decision about whether to visit his property was a matter of professional judgement.

Updated: March 13, 2018