Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Shropshire Council (18 000 607)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Dec-2018

    Summary: The Council took a suitable approach to planning enforcement action on a site but allowed a short period of undue delay which caused the complainant unnecessary frustration. The Council did not keep adequate records of its actions, which was fault.

  • London Borough of Ealing (17 014 188)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Nov-2018

    Summary: The Council provided wrong information about the location of a telecommunications mast in 2015 which meant it did not investigate whether a planning breach occurred. It has also delayed responding to the complainant. The Council's apology, provision of correct information and investigation into the original complaint about the increase in thickness of the mast remedies this complaint.

  • Manchester City Council (18 007 308)

    Statement Not upheld Other 22-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not properly consider the impact on him when it approved planning permission for an extension to a neighbouring property. He says the owner is not building the extension in line with the approved plan. The Ombudsman finds the Council is not at fault in how it considered the application. It is acting appropriately to address concerns about the extension not being built to plan.

  • Three Rivers District Council (18 007 715)

    Statement Not upheld Other 24-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council was wrong to withdraw a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) exemption in respect of an extension to his home. He complains the Council failed to take account of the law and as a result the Council wrongly charged him a CIL levy of £27,124.20 which it should now refund. We found the Council was not at fault.

  • Cornwall Council (18 001 224)

    Statement Not upheld Other 19-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's failure over a number of years to protect certain building and heritage assets in the area where he lives. Mr B and his co-complainants have not suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the issues about which they complain. Nor is it in the wider public interest to investigate the matters raised. I am not, therefore, going to investigate the complaint further

  • London Borough of Barnet (17 017 802)

    Statement Not upheld Other 19-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Council reached a view on the lawfulness of a development through the correct process and properly investigated other concerns about breaches of planning control caused by the complainants' neighbour. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the matter which has been appealed to the Planning Inspector because that process is not yet complete.

  • Wiltshire Council (17 014 996)

    Statement Not upheld Other 18-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault on Mr D's complaint about an officer granting planning consent. The officer's email was poorly worded but he did not, and could not ,grant consent. There was no fault in the way Mr D was dealt with during a Cabinet meeting. He made points which were considered. Any injustice from the summary only version of his representations will be remedied by the planning inspector's examination. I exercised discretion not to investigate the remaining complaints as they raise issues the planning inspectorate can consider.

  • London Borough of Merton (18 000 396)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Council was not at fault when it failed to notify Mrs Y about changes to a nearby planning application because there was no requirement for it to do so. Nor does the Council have consider the weight limit on the access road because it is a private matter between the land owners and the developer. But it failed to adequately respond to Mr X's correspondence and complaints despite previous criticism on this issue from the Ombudsman.

  • Cornwall Council (18 000 639)

    Statement Not upheld Other 01-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council's planning department. His concerns included a council officer contacting an estate agent acting for Mr X, and incorrect information on the Council's website. The Council was at fault because some of the information it sent to the estate agent was wrong. But this did not cause Mr X any significant personal injustice.

  • Elmbridge Borough Council (18 003 214)

    Statement Upheld Other 01-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains there has been fault by the Council in how it dealt with charges relating to a planning application he submitted. While there was an error regarding CIL liability in the officer report for Mr B's application, the correct position had been made clear in the Decision Notice and we will not pursue the complaint any further.