Complaints Dept.
Wiltshire County Council Complaints Department
There is a maximum period of 30 working days for Wiltshire Council to resolve a complaint. An additional 10 days lee-way is also given. Following my complaints in May 2015, the Ethical Governance Officer, at two monthly intervals has advised me that his enquiries are still continuing. The reasons which have been given for the failure to reply are his ‘casework, the complexity of the complaint, not being able to spend the necessary time on exploring the history and legislation.’ It was nearly nine months before I received a reply which still did not answer how many council-funded residents were paid for. Other questions were answered, in part over the course of a year, by the Planning Department. As stated the mantras, ‘would have been granted in any case’ and ‘not large enough scale to warrant placing restrictions’ were given. I did receive a written apology for the length of time taken.
As I have stated throughout, much of what is said is opinion, not based on law or case law.
________________________________________________________________________
I chose to ‘imprint’ from the outset that a ‘ploy’ of Public Bodies is to brand someone making complaints a ‘vexatious complainer.’ Possibly as the result, this has not happened and I am told this is not a consideration. However it may be of benefit for you to read the policy on Wiltshire Council’s website.
In an earlier email, The Ethical Governance Officer asked for clarification about my complaints. I was set a lengthy list of questions which I duly returned. My replies included saying that I did not want to complain about the actions of any specific individual, that it would come as a complete surprise if Wiltshire Council accepted any criticism of their procedures and that any increase in council funded residents would be morally and ethically indefensible. I have several times indicated my intention to warn others about what I consider to be flaws in procedures.
__________________________________________________________________________
Issue 1- Breach of Planning Condition
Ethical Governance Officer
“… the planning decision does apply 7 conditions, 2 of which relate to the staff car parking area within the new development”
Response
The Ethical Governance Officer having raised this issue, I informed him that unless I was mistaken, not for the first time, a condition had been breached. On 29th May, 2013 and 26th January, 2015 the condition to erect a ‘Staff Parking Only’ sign was made. There was no such sign.
Issue 2- Failure to Restrict Working Hours/ NPPF
Ethical Governance Officer
“Of the other objections held on the website one asks that the delivery of construction materials be limited to during school hours; one states construction will be disruptive; one states construction traffic and construction will be disruptive, but none call for a restriction on working hours.”
Available guidance strongly suggests that the usual permitted hours of work when noise can be audible are –
Monday to Friday 8.00am to 6.00pm
Saturday 8.00am to 1.00pm
Response
Roy Looker, a Willowbrook resident stated on 20th February, 2013, ‘I would certainly want to see restrictions on the hours permitted for building to take place, say between 9.00am and 5.00pm, and also weight restriction on lorries delivering in what is a very restricted road area.’
In addition to the Ethical Governance Officer’s ‘none calls for a restriction comment I personally read into his reply that, ‘If you do not ask, you do not get.’ The question must arise that when Wiltshire Council are dealing with people who do not know the first thing about their procedures they hold all the cards and only allow you to know what they want.
(ie What else might I be entitled to if I knew what to ask for?)
This is not ‘Equality of Arms’ in relation to Public Bodies and Human Rights. I certainly do not want to be presented with a large legal bill to obtain the necessary legal advice to thwart a permanent change in circumstances to my life and home (see Appendix ‘D’ for recommendations).
Ethical Governance Officer
“Whilst (Care Home’s Planning Agent) email of the 21/02/2013 says his clients would be happy to accept a condition limiting the hours of construction work I have seen no mention in the planning application of the developer requesting permission to work outside of the above hours.
Restrictions on working hours would normally be included and agreed in a Construction Method Statement but a statement is not required by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations and would usually be applied to larger construction sites or construction work in sensitive areas. I believe the officers involved in your application considered the work carried out at (the care home) and associated buildings were neither of a scale or in an area that required a Construction Method Statement and the planning officer’s report makes no reference to imposing a Construction Method Statement or a restriction on working hours.”
Response
Why would a developer request permission to work outside of the above hours when he is free to work whatever hours he wants? What does constitute the scale or is sensitive? Everyone seems to have an opinion but few are backed-up with law, case law or are evidenced. I find it hard to believe that 14 vehicles in a small cul-de-sac with a corresponding number of workmen is, in the opinion of others, of insufficient scale to class in this way. The photographs on the website will allow you to draw your own conclusions. The effects of weekend and evening working are highlighted throughout this website.
I personally am of the opinion that the Planning Committee, which I have likened to a hurried Kangaroo Court, were such a hurry, this was an oversight.”
Issue 3 – Pre-Existing Noise, Parking and Potential Problem Not Identified To Council
Ethical Governance Officer
“I feel I should also point out that planning conditions cannot be imposed in order to remedy a pre-existing problem or issue not created by the proposed development. Some of the objections suggest that noise from (the care home) and car parking by staff may already have been a problem and these could not be addressed by imposing conditions to the planning decision.”
Ethical Governance Officer
“Although your emails since the construction work started raising the issues of disruption and noise caused by the building work, your emails of objection prior to the construction work held on the Wiltshire Council website do not appear to mention this.”
In-house Wiltshire Council Solicitor
‘Objection has been raised to the potential of noise from the site. The use is for a residential care home, not commercial business uses where heavy machinery may be operated. A care home within a residential location is therefore considered to be an entirely acceptable use. The potential of noise from residents and the lift are not considered to be reasons for refusal and any unacceptable disturbances could be addressed through the appropriate channels of the Environmental Health Officers.’
Ethical Governance Officer
“I note that your complaints and emails mention problems caused by construction traffic parking in Willowbrook and your concerns regarding potential parking by staff from (the care home) in Willowbrook. However, as far as I am aware this could not be controlled by planning conditions or a Construction Method Statement and the Council has no power to prevent constructors or (the care home) staff using on-street parking other than the parking restrictions that usually apply to the area.”
Response
The beauty of living in this cul-de-sac is that day or night there is little if no noise. This is supported by both Dr Beere who spoke of pinging noise coming from (the care home)in 2009 and Mr John (2013) of shouting and wailing from the home. Otherwise the cul-de-sac is silent at night. I support the 2016 objection of Mr Frost that there are an inordinate number of delivery vans stopping making deliveries to properties in the addresses adjacent to the care home.(Even if not to the premises themselves 9 Willowbrook is owned by the care home)
The concerns are that there were early examples of staff using the rear doors, the gate left to bang and an ambulance noisily turning up late at night with the care home owner in his high powered car.
The care home’s planning agent stated that the comings and goings are likely to
A.’ actually be less than the unrestricted residential movements currently associated with No 8.’
B.’Obviously at the moment No 8 is an unrestricted residential property, where presumably in the past the postman made daily visits and other visitors and deliveries were made throughout the day, over and above the comings and goings of the residents. Interrogation of the TRICs database suggests that such a dwelling could be anticipated to generate approx. 9 daily movements. By comparison with the two vehicles twice daily there will clearly be a reduction in activities. I would stress though that the nature of such activities is not materially different from the established residential movement of cars and will have no demonstrable impact on the nearby residents.’
C ‘….so that the comings and goings will be akin to or less than the unrestricted residential use and the new building is clearly residential in scale and form.’
D ‘…there will be no intensification of the existing unrestricted residential use of Willowbrook.’
In relation to me not ‘predicting’ the issues I have outlined, in respect of builders, work was being carried out feet from my house and cars parked and materials stores close to my house. The argument could be reversed. The purchase of 9 Willowbrook was predicted and pointed out. Professional planning staff and a planning committee should have investigated and this would have become evident. Alternatively they should have foreseen the problem, having regard to the care home having little space left for work to be carried out.
It was evident that this issue, like ambulances, would arise. It has long been suspected, like Witts Lane, parking in the street would grow by stealth. Lay-bys in the street would soon be taken over and one being used became two. The applicant of the 2016 planning application verbally stated that no staff would be allowed to park in Willowbrook. This assurance was quickly breached. Imprinting what is taking place will make it easier to ask for parking restrictions in the street or that as the care home owner is operating as an ‘agent’ on the Council’s behalf that they exercise some control over his breaches of our privacy. There is supposed to be ample parking available, according to various assurances we have received.
Saying that the, ‘Council has no power to prevent constructors or (the care home) staff using on-street parking,’ is not acceptable. Granting permission then abdicating authority is grossly unfair and because of the Council funding 9 residents they have some responsibility.
Issue 4- Additional Rooms (not on plans)
Ethical Governance Officer
“The information available on the Care Quality Commission website and held on the planning website strongly suggests (the care home)was registered as a 34 bed capacity. The letter from (Planning Agent) dated 28/01/2013 which accompanied the planning application said that although (the care home) was set up as a 34 bed capacity this had been based on some rooms being shared, all the rooms were now single occupancy and the capacity was reduced to 28 beds. Both the letter and application form said the proposed work would reduce the capacity by one bed, but would allow 5 more rooms to be built, giving a net gain of 4 on the existing capacity. (Planning Agent) believed this would give an overall capacity of 31 but the figures suggest this should have been 32. Building a 6th room would increase the capacity to 33, still within the permitted number. I note the planning officer’s report makes no mention of the number of bedrooms to be built but does say the application was in accordance with the 34 spaces currently permitted.”
“…When considering planning applications only items identified as material planning considerations may be taken into account.”
“… Given the above I believe there was no action the Council should or could have taken regarding the change to the internal layout.”
The Area Team Leader of the Planning Department “the exact number of rooms to be constructed is not in and of itself material to the determination of this application.”
Response
Wiltshire Council appear to have the ability to make far reaching changes to your lifestyle and enjoyment of your property but then abdicate all authority. By the time the current 2016 application is ‘granted’ the premises will bear little resemblance to the original plan.
Issue 5- Fail to Post Notices and Letters sent to 2 adjoining properties.
Ethical Governance Officer
“The Wiltshire Council website contains documents relating to planning application 13/00244/FUL including a list of neighbours consulted which shows 32 addresses
in Willowbrook and the surrounding area, amongst which is 15 Willowbrook. However, an email dated 17/05/2013 from the residents of 15 Willowbrook states they were not consulted and that no site notices had originally been placed in Willowbrook. The email also says the site notice made no mention of the proposed building being for business use. This is echoed in other complaints. The issue of the notices is recognised in the report dated 29/05/2013 made to the North Area Planning Committee by (in house solicitor), Planning Officer, and said the Parish Council raised concerns regarding the original notices following which new site notices were posted at the entrance to Willowbrook and (the care home) allowing 3 weeks for comments to be received. Whilst it is accepted there was a problem with displaying site notices, 23 objections were received and logged on the planning website and objectors spoke at the Planning Committee meeting. From this it appears that any problems with the display of the site notices were corrected.
Staying on the subject of objections you stated (the care home’s Planning Agent’s) email of the 21/02/2013 only referred to 4 objections being received. At the time of the Planning Agent’s email this appears to be correct but any potential underestimation of objections was offset by the (in house solicitor) report to the Planning Committee which clearly states 23 objections were received.”
Response
I made an issue about the Planning Department only sending notification letters (to two) addresses either side of the premises planning permission and failure to post planning notices in 1988 and 2013.The relevance of the Planning Agent’s remark about 4 objections being received (and a question about how many would be needed for referral to committee) was that it supported the suggestion that Planning Permission was not properly being advertised.
If of the properties the four letters are sent, one is selling to the care home, one buy to let and one abroad (later: one in consultation with the care home) what chance do residents have if no green notice is displayed?
It is ironic that the Ethical Governance Officer chose to mention 15 Willowbrook because in an email to the Area Development Manager (North) on 29th May 2013, Barbara Kersey indicates that, ‘I was unaware of the development until it was too late to lobby the parish council at their meeting’ (she was one of the objectors at the Planning Committee hearing).
By my return from India on 13th March, 2013 the Parish Council meeting had been held (permission applied for on 28th January)
Issue 6- Human Rights/ Conflict of Interest
Ethical Governance Officer
“It therefore seems most likely (care home owner) is covered by the HRA and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) when providing a service to his residents and if you have any concerns regarding the service provided to or the treatment of his residents you should bring them to the attention of the Council and the police. However, as (the care home owner) is not providing a service to you there may be no duty towards you under the HRA and ECHR.”
On 2nd April,2015 the Area Team Leader (North), was clear that granting planning permission and Council funding of care home residents was no ‘conflict of interest’ and that was not a material planning consideration and formed no part of the decision making process. Procedures were followed.
Response
My interpretation is that Wiltshire Council owe me a ‘duty of care.’ The care home owner acts on their behalf and whilst he owes me no duty of care, his actions impact on my privacy and enjoyment of my property. Therefore the care home owner’s funding by Wiltshire Council should be kept under review if repeated planning applications and wrongful use of the rear doors become disruptive to residents.
Relevant Legislation
Right to a Private Life :
Right to peaceful enjoyment of all (their) possessions which includes the home and other land (Protocol 1, Article 1):
Equality of Arms (at the Planning Meeting) :
Right to Free Legal Advice and
Freedom of Expression
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) applies to all public authorities and to other bodies when they are performing ‘functions of a public nature.’ Under section 6 such bodies are under a duty to act compatibly with the human rights protected by the Act. This ensures that human rights are not limited to litigating in the courts or dispute resolution, but become part and parcel of the development and delivery of public services. Currently all residential care services provided or arranged by local authorities are covered by the HRA
Issue 7- Misc.
Ethical Governance Officer
“The objections to the planning application and your subsequent complaints covered many items and appear to include –
Construction noise and disturbance;
Strength and volume of opposition;
(Named care home owner) motives and personal conduct,
Breach of covenants
The range of care needs of the residents
My research strongly indicates all the above are non-material planning considerations and were not items that could be included in the consideration of the planning application.”
The Area Development Manager (North) stated, “The case officers have carefully considered all the matters raised, but can only legitimately take into account such matters that are relevant to planning. These ‘material considerations’ (and equally what are not material considerations) are well established through planning case law.”
Response
I again respond:- Wiltshire Council appear to have the ability to make far reaching changes to your lifestyle and enjoyment of your property but then abdicate all authority. They seem to be able to pick and choose what is presented to them to investigate. Perhaps I should have asked for a summary of the decided cases and not taken ‘well established’ at face value.
The odds are totally stacked against you when you are unaware of the law and only have a two or three minute slot to make representations why the biggest sole investment of your life should not forever be changed for the worse and the applicant is represented by a Town and Country planner with a string of qualifications.
