Highway adoption archive 2016-2017


Archive has 5 results

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (16 000 004)

    Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 30-Jan-2017

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has included development sites in its local plan which may allow development on a village green and may not act properly in the future when considering planning applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate as there is no indication that Mr Y is caused a significant personal injustice or that this is a significant public interest matter.

  • Durham County Council (16 005 672)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 10-Nov-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to accept that a lane is an adopted highway. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council to justify her becoming involved.

  • East Sussex County Council (15 016 173)

    Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 31-Aug-2016

    Summary: There is no or insufficient evidence the Council acted with fault in its design or location of a pedestrian footway outside the complainant's home. It has responded suitably to specific concerns raised by the complainant about land ownership, construction of the footway and drainage issues post-construction.

  • Lancashire County Council (16 003 317)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 30-Jun-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the adoption of a highway as it is outside her jurisdiction because it was not made to her in time.

  • Surrey County Council (15 019 762)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 11-Apr-2016

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has not adopted a private road and is a party to a planning agreement which is to the detriment of owners on the estate. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as the Council is not at fault.