Festive closure

We will close at 5pm on Tuesday 24 December 2024 and reopen at 9am Friday 3 January 2025. You can still submit complaints through our online form, but we won't respond until we reopen.

Decision report 201102546

  • Case ref:
    201102546
  • Date:
    June 2012
  • Body:
    North Lanarkshire Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Advertisement of proposals: notification and hearing of objections

Summary
Mr C lives in a building, part of which had previously been converted to shop premises. Agents for the owners of the shop had discussions with council officers and followed these up with an application for planning consent to extend the premises to the front and side. Changes in practice related to the Planning etc Scotland Act 2006 meant that it was the council's responsibility to have notified six parties, including Mr C, about the planning application. Mr C did not receive notification and the application was approved by officers under delegated powers. When work started, Mr C contacted his solicitors to make a complaint.

The solicitors made three complaints on behalf of Mr C. They complained that the council had: failed in their duty to carry out neighbour notification in respect of the application, failed to properly evaluate parking at the site as part of their consideration of the application, and refused to take appropriate action on complaints about noise nuisance. The solicitors said that Mr C had been disadvantaged as a result of not being notified and in the alleged lack of consideration given to material planning issues, most notably parking. They obtained affidavits (statements) from four other residents, all of whom said that they too had not received neighbour notification.

Following the advice of our planning adviser, we decided not to uphold these complaints. On the first complaint, although five parties claimed they had not been notified, the council's records indicated that the notifications were sent. We took the view that the council's duty did not extend to confirming or tracking receipt of these. On the second complaint, the issue of parking had clearly been considered, both before the application was made and as part of the assessment of the application. On the third complaint the alleged noise nuisance had been appropriately investigated by environmental officers.

Updated: March 13, 2018