Privacy settings

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.

Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Bristol City Council (21 005 378)

    Statement Upheld Other 11-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr F complains that the Council failed to include advice about residents parking within planning decisions on a property he is developing. We found there was fault by the Council but this did not cause injustice to Mr F.

  • Stratford-on-Avon District Council (21 013 811)

    Statement Not upheld Other 04-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Council's actions did not lead to the injustice claimed by the complainant so no further investigation is warranted. Even if the Council was at fault, Mr X would have never had a right of review or appeal against a Community Infrastructure Levy on his housing development as he had commenced work before the Community Infrastructure Levy process began.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 017 677)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains about delay by the Council in removing comments in a planning case. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied.

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 973)

    Statement Not upheld Other 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: We found no fault in how the Council publicised a planning application for development near Mrs X's home.

  • Vale of White Horse District Council (21 006 970)

    Statement Not upheld Other 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's handling of a planning and environmental health matter concerning a village shop and café. The Council did not intend to prevent the café serving hot food and so it is not fault that the planning permission allows this. The Council has also given adequate reasons why it does not consider the café is causing a statutory odour nuisance. For this reason, we have completed our investigation.

  • Herefordshire Council (21 011 429)

    Statement Not upheld Other 16-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her concerns about development on agricultural land near her home. We ended our investigation because the Council is considering a planning application relating to the land and we are unlikely to find evidence of a significant injustice to Mrs X.

  • Wychavon District Council (21 007 263)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council provided incorrect information in local land charges searches regarding the Permitted Development rights for a property he purchased. The Council's failure to record the removal of permitted development rights as a local land charge which is discoverable through a search of the local land charges register is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

  • Thurrock Council (21 008 139)

    Statement Not upheld Other 11-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to determine an application to vary his section 106 planning agreement and that this has caused him significant losses. We ended our investigation because it is unlikely to result in a meaningful outcome.

  • Havant Borough Council (21 000 596)

    Statement Not upheld Other 01-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to approve development behind her home. We ended our investigation because it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault or a remedy for Mrs X.

  • Dacorum Borough Council (21 006 954)

    Statement Upheld Other 28-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council wrongly confirmed an Article 4 Direction for an area in which he owns a plot of land. We found no fault in how the Council handled the Article 4 Direction process, we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision. Also, there was not fault in how it responded to Mr B's complaint in 2021. However, it was at fault for failing to respond to him when he first brought his concerns to its attention in 2020. It has agreed to apologise to Mr B for the uncertainty this caused.