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:

  • Hambleton District Council (20 013 172)

    Statement Not upheld Other 06-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve a planning application for development on land on the edge of his village. We did not investigate his complaints further because Mr X was not caused a significant injustice or an injustice for which we would recommend a remedy.

  • Braintree District Council (20 010 048)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council had failed to decide a prior approval application within planning regulation time limits, so lost the chance to control the siting and appearance of a telecommunications mast. There was fault because the Council did not act within the regulation time limit, and this caused Mr X uncertainty and disappointment. The Council has remedied this by making satisfactory improvements to its planning service.

  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 714)

    Statement Upheld Other 01-Sep-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an error in a planning report. This is because we are satisfied with the Council's issuing of a correction statement. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs D is seeking.

  • Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 977)

    Statement Not upheld Other 31-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X, as Chairperson of a residents' action group, complained the Council failed to follow the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure flood risk is not increased. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. It properly considered the issues in the terms of an outline application and met the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework by adding conditions to ensure the risk of flooding does not increase when the reserved matters application is considered.

  • London Borough of Southwark (20 013 690)

    Statement Not upheld Other 20-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr C complained about the Council's consideration of a prior approval application to demolish a vacant public house and planning application to redevelop the site of the former public house. We have ended our involvement as we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

  • Northumberland County Council (20 006 648)

    Statement Not upheld Other 13-Aug-2021

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it considered the potential adverse impact from noise and light when it granted planning permission for a sports pitch near Mr B's home.

  • Braintree District Council (20 006 838)

    Statement Not upheld Other 12-Aug-2021

    Summary: We found no fault in how the Council dealt with design quality in deciding to approve details for a development near Mr X's home.

  • London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 009 133)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X said the Council wrongly discharged a planning condition that was meant to protect his home from unacceptable noise from nearby development. We found the Council's decision making lacked clarity about the noise reduction measures achieved by the development. This lack of clarity did not affect the Council's decision to discharge the planning condition. However, it caused Mr X avoidable frustration, for which the Council agreed to apologise.

  • Isle of Wight Council (20 009 248)

    Statement Upheld Other 09-Jul-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr F's main complaint of the Council failing to take enforcement action for breaches of planning consent by a nearby business. Nor was it fault to not insist on a new planning application. The Council was entitled to consider revisions under a variation clause. It failed to consider his complaint within the timescale set out by its complaints procedure. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

  • Manchester City Council (20 008 815)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-Jul-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains about her dealings with the Council over an outbuilding built by her neighbour initially without planning permission. There was unreasonable delay by the Council in dealing with the planning enforcement complaint. The Council should now apologise to Ms X for the delay.