Recent statements in this category are shown below:
-
London Borough of Bexley (19 019 161)
Statement Not upheld Other 18-Jun-2020
Summary: Mr X complained that, following its approval of an extension to a retail development, the Council failed to enforce a minimum width of footpath of 1.5 metres. The developer has since removed the main obstructions. I have ended my investigation, because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a finding of fault or remedy for Mr X.
-
Cheshire East Council (19 008 176)
Statement Not upheld Other 22-Apr-2020
Summary: Mr X complained the Council's new local development plan has designated land for housing that was once part of its green belt. We did not investigate the complaint further, because we are unlikely to achieve a different or meaningful outcome.
-
Thanet District Council (19 009 846)
Statement Not upheld Other 20-Apr-2020
Summary: Mr B's complains about the way the Council considered various applications he has made for development and changes to his home and gardens. The investigation has been discontinued because of the various jurisdictional reasons given in the statement.
-
Mid Sussex District Council (19 009 822)
Statement Not upheld Other 31-Mar-2020
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council handled a section 106 agreement for new housing development where Mr B lives.
-
Stratford-on-Avon District Council (19 008 806)
Statement Not upheld Other 25-Mar-2020
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce planning conditions on a development near his home. He said he suffered disruption and unsightly views as a result of this. We have found no fault with the Council's actions and have closed the case.
-
Arun District Council (19 009 916)
Statement Not upheld Other 23-Mar-2020
Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with planning applications to vary access arrangements to residential developments on land next to Mr and Mrs X's home.
-
Warwick District Council (19 006 545)
Statement Not upheld Other 19-Mar-2020
Summary: Mr X complains the Council is failing to discharge its duties under section 2A of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, as amended. Based on the documentation currently available there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has met its duties under the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015.
-
Birmingham City Council (19 009 353)
Statement Not upheld Other 18-Mar-2020
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision that a housebuilder will have to wait for the roads outside the new houses to be adopted before he can apply for dropped kerbs from the highway department.
-
Aylesbury Vale District Council (19 006 301)
Statement Upheld Other 11-Mar-2020
Summary: The Council is not at fault for not refunding the application fee of £462 when it did not determine Mr and Mrs X's application for a Lawful Development Certificate within 26 weeks and within the extension period agreed with Mr and Mrs X. The Council is at fault as it delayed in dealing with Mr and Mrs X's complaint. It has apologised for this which is a sufficient and proportionate remedy.
-
Statement Upheld Other 11-Mar-2020
Summary: The complaint concerns unauthorised development in the greenbelt. There was failure by the Council to take the action it had identified as being necessary between September 2018 and September 2019.