Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained about changes to proposals for planning consent for a superstore to the rear of his home, specifically about the relocation of a large sprinkler tank, now sited immediately adjacent to his boundary, and also about the way Fife Council (the Council) dealt with correspondence on the matter.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:
- (a) delayed or failed to reply to correspondence (upheld);
- (b) failed in their assessment of an initial application and decision on material variations, to demonstrate that contemporary consideration was given to the materiality of the changes and whether further neighbour notification should be carried out (upheld); and
- (c) in their assessment of a second application failed to consider whether a report on environmental issues remained valid, the effect on Mr C's property of the changes, whether the application was properly described and whether the sprinkler tank complied with Council policy and design guidance (upheld).
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
- (i) apologise to Mr C for the identified shortcomings in dealing with his correspondence and complaint and for the inadequacies in record-keeping; and
- (ii) assess whether there are in fact any noise problems emanating from the plant buildings, and if so, approach the superstore company.
The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.