Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (19 006 216)

    Statement Not upheld Other 16-Dec-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr E's complaint about the Council failing to properly consider a full planning application it granted consent. The Council properly considered the application. His complaint about its handling of an earlier application for outline consent was not investigated because it was late.

  • Wakefield City Council (19 007 218)

    Statement Not upheld Other 10-Dec-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no significant injustice to Mr G on his complaint against the Council about its refusal to register previously developed and contaminated land he owns on to Part 1 of the Brownfield Land Register. I exercised discretion to discontinue the investigation of this complaint.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 007 146)

    Statement Not upheld Other 05-Dec-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council provided an inaccurate ecology report to another council and failed to respond to her contacts about this. However, Ms X's property does not adjoin the development site the complaint concerns and there is insufficient personal injustice to her for the Ombudsman to investigate further.

  • Cornwall Council (19 006 199)

    Statement Not upheld Other 13-Nov-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint. The matters it raises are too old, better addressed by a different body, and/or are matters of professional judgement. There is also no evidence of injustice to the complainant which the Ombudsman could seek to remedy.

  • Uttlesford District Council (18 015 030)

    Statement Upheld Other 06-Nov-2019

    Summary: The Council wrongly told Ms B her property was curtilage listed. Ms B complains that this meant she applied for planning permission and listed building consent for work to the property which were unnecessary. She says she has incurred costs in carrying out work the Council required because of the listed status. And that building works to the property were limited and altered to meet the requirements of the listed status.

  • East Devon District Council (19 002 424)

    Statement Not upheld Other 21-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly issued a Certificate of proposed lawful use for a car park. He says it wrongly determined the site was within the curtilage of the property and failed to properly consider relevant caselaw. There was no fault in how the Council made its decision.

  • Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (18 018 175)

    Statement Not upheld Other 07-Oct-2019

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's decision to waive a requirement of a section 106 agreement, in respect to the sale of a property. There was also no fault in its decision the same requirement had been met in respect to the sale of another property. The Ombudsman has therefore completed his investigation.

  • Hertsmere Borough Council (18 014 639)

    Statement Upheld Other 13-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to control and manage development near to his home, allowing a woodland area to be adversely affected. The Ombudsman finds that except for a minor administrative error which did not lead to injustice, the Council acted without fault.

  • Chichester District Council (18 017 839)

    Statement Not upheld Other 21-Aug-2019

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged it misled the public over its dealings with a company which won a tender to operate an ice rink in a local park.

  • Wokingham Borough Council (18 001 954)

    Statement Upheld Other 19-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council handled planning matters that affect her home. Mrs X says she has been unable to progress renovations to her home, has incurred application fees that may have been unnecessary, and has spent time and trouble chasing the Council for responses. She says this has all caused her stress. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for wrongly issuing a Certificate of Lawfulness and for the way it handled her complaint. We find this fault caused Mrs X injustice. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the Council's refund of the Certificate of Lawfulness application fee is a suitable remedy for that fault. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused by the fault in its complaint handling.