Thursday 22 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 201402322

  • Case ref:
    201402322
  • Date:
    December 2015
  • Body:
    Perth and Kinross Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    handling of application (complaints by opponents)

Summary

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.

Updated: March 13, 2018