Archive has 76 results
Statement Not upheld Other 30-Mar-2015
Summary: The Council has taken action to encourage the owners of unauthorised caravan sites to apply for Lawful Development Certificates. It has issued licences to control how the sites are run. I have not upheld Mr B's complaints. The Council has properly investigated his land drainage problems and considered what action it can take by law. The Council has not received a complaint about fly-tipping on Mr B's land since 2012. Too much time has passed for me to investigate that now. I cannot investigate whether the Council is right to demand council tax when Mr B feels he cannot farm his land, because he had the right to appeal to a tribunal about this.
Statement Not upheld Other 30-Mar-2015
Summary: Ms X complains, on behalf of local residents, about the way the Council has managed open space provided under a s.106 agreement. There has been some delay by the Council, but this has not caused a significant injustice. The Ombudsman cannot intervene in the merits of decisions made by the Council as these have been made without fault.
Statement Upheld Other 30-Mar-2015
Summary: The Council gave Mr A confusing information about his right to be consulted before a play area behind his home was refurbished but there was no deliberate attempt to mislead him. The Council was however at fault for adopting a consultation exercise carried out by members of the public over which it had no control and without checking it had been carried out in accordance with the law.
Statement Upheld Other 24-Mar-2015
Summary: The Council failed to consider government planning guidance properly when deciding a neighbour's application for a Lawful Development Certificate. Nor did it say why it was not following the Guidance. It delayed in dealing with Mr X's complaints. These were faults. I do not find it likely the neighbour's extension would not have been allowed. But the doubt about this, and delay, caused Mr X avoidable upset, and to take more time and trouble to pursue his complaint than should have been necessary. I uphold this complaint.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 23-Mar-2015
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaints about the Council's failure to consult with the public about its Off-Site Emergency Plan (OffSEP). This is because there is not enough evidence of the Council's actions causing a significant enough injustice to Mr A to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and there is another body better placed to deal with his concerns.
Statement Not upheld Other 20-Mar-2015
Summary: Ms A, acting on behalf of a local action group, complains about the Council's handling of a planning application for a new school in her village. The complaint is not upheld. Without evidence of fault by the Council the Ombudsman will not pursue the complaint any further.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 19-Mar-2015
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a planning matter as, in part, it is outside her jurisdiction. For that part in her jurisdiction, no worthwhile outcome would be served by commencing an investigation.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Mar-2015
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council should have requested a planning application for the demolition of some gas holders, and that it breached data protection rules when it responded to an associated request for information. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr B to pursue a court remedy in respect of some parts of his complaint, and he has not been caused a significant personal injustice by the other parts.
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 16-Mar-2015
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's failure to force a developer to adjust floodlights (which affect wildlife). The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of maladministration and the planning decisions are out of time.
Statement Upheld Other 12-Mar-2015
Summary: The Council did not act with fault when it decided Mr M's application for an agricultural barn under the prior notification process was not valid. It should not have publicised the application on its planning website. It also took too long to respond to his complaint. The Council has changed its procedures and removed the application from its website. The Ombudsman has completed her investigation as the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr M. This means there is no remaining injustice to Mr M that requires a further remedy.