Other archive 2020-2021


Archive has 111 results

  • Aylesbury Vale District Council (19 018 764)

    Statement Not upheld Other 17-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly discharged a planning condition despite incomplete information being submitted. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. This is because Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice and he can take the matter up with his local councillor or MP.

  • Manchester City Council (20 001 686)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 16-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the grant of planning permission for the change of use of a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to him to warrant investigation.

  • Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (20 001 216)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 15-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to accept a planning application for determination. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

  • West Sussex County Council (19 013 499)

    Statement Not upheld Other 10-Sep-2020

    Summary: Ms X complained about the County Council transferring money paid under a planning legal agreement to a third party to carry out works near her home. Ms X said the third party did not have the ability to carry out the works and its errors badly affected her residential amenities. The Ombudsman did not find fault by the County Council.

  • Cheshire East Council (20 002 800)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 10-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

  • London Borough of Croydon (19 006 243)

    Statement Not upheld Other 09-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council considered his neighbour’s plans to build a large rear extension. He says the extension impacts on his light and privacy, and its decision is inconsistent because it refused his similar application. There was no fault by the Council. It properly considered the impact on Mr B of the new extension and took into account all the relevant factors.

  • Northumberland County Council (20 002 514)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 03-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a streetlight because he first complained to the Council about that issue in November 2017. The matter is late, and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate it now. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement action against a fence he built at the front of his property. Mr X has appealed the matter to the Planning Inspectorate, so the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate it.

  • South Oxfordshire District Council (19 010 315)

    Statement Not upheld Other 02-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council held a referendum for a neighbourhood plan containing a misleading statement about not building houses on flood zone land. Mr B says residents may be adversely affected by development on flood zone land and were potentially misled by the statement which may have affected the referendum outcome. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Merton (20 001 481)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 02-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about income arising from a legal agreement relating to a housing development. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice to the complainant.

  • Dorset Council (19 013 603)

    Statement Not upheld Other 28-Aug-2020

    Summary: Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly consider an application for a certificate of lawfulness of use and robustly challenge evidence presented to it. The Council says it considered all the information. The Ombudsman finds the Council decided the application without fault.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings