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:

  • 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.

  • Broxbourne Borough Council (20 007 400)

    Statement Not upheld Other 28-Jun-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered a reserved matters application for housing on a large development near Mr B's home. It properly considered and addressed the issues raised by the public, and took into account national and local planning policy when it decided to grant planning permission.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 256)

    Statement Not upheld Other 23-Jun-2021

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about its handling of a planning application for a development close to the complainant's home.

  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 914)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with planning permissions for a quarry site. The Council is at fault because it delayed taking enforcement action and has not properly considered whether enforcement action is necessary. Mr X has suffered distress. The Council should pay Mr X £200 for his distress, conduct a new review of compliance with planning permission and reconsider what action it should take.

  • Lewes District Council (20 007 183)

    Statement Upheld Other 11-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to respond to a prior notification application within the time limit set out in regulations. There was fault in the way the Council made its planning decisions which it has agreed to remedy.

  • Gloucester City Council (20 008 826)

    Statement Not upheld Other 11-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mrs W complains the Council entered her home and ordered for work on her property to stop without having the legal authority to do so. Mrs W says the Council officer was rude and discriminatory and their actions have caused significant distress. There is some delay in the Council's handling of Mrs W's complaint, but we cannot reach a view on the underlying matters. There are conflicting accounts of the visit and there is no independent evidence which shows the officer entered forcefully or without invitation.

  • Tandridge District Council (20 001 981)

    Statement Upheld Other 10-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's decision to grant a Certificate of Lawfulness for development next to his home. We find that while the decision was one the Council was entitled to make, it failed to properly consider Mr B's representations about the matter or to document such consideration, and that was fault. There was further fault in the Council's handling of Mr B's complaint. These faults led to injustice for Mr B, for which a remedy has been agreed.

  • Vale of White Horse District Council (20 006 891)

    Statement Not upheld Other 04-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complained about the actions the Council took in response to concerns she raised about breaches of a plan to control construction traffic to a major development site near her home. She said the traffic was dangerous and was spending a lot of time and trouble in pursuing the matter. We cannot find fault with the Council.