Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Not upheld Other 20-Feb-2020
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to refuse a second vehicle crossover to his property. The Council was not at fault.
Statement Upheld Other 18-Feb-2020
Summary: A local interest group complained the decision notice the Council issued on a hedgerow removal application did not reflect the decision that the planning committee took on the application. We upheld the complaint. The Council were at fault and the decision notice did not reflect the Committee's decision. Part of the officer's recommendation was not addressed by Committee and both the Committee and Officers failed to follow relevant guidance. The Council's decision making was unclear as a result. However, we found, on balance, the outcome was unlikely to be different. We did not reach a view on other issues the group raised about the case officers report and actions as they did not lead to injustice. The Council agreed to review its practices as a result of the complaint.
Statement Not upheld Other 06-Feb-2020
Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of a local community group about the Council's actions in relation to the fencing of local playing fields. Mrs Y says that officers acted without transparency and neutrality and have allowed the leaseholder to unlawfully fence the site and damage protected trees. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the Council's decision where there is no evidence of procedural fault.
Statement Not upheld Other 24-Jan-2020
Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to consider the impact on him and his neighbours when considering an application for a certificate of lawfulness of use when it granted the certificate. The change of use the complainant says has led to anti-social behaviour, loss of amenity and a devaluation of his home. The Council says it considered the application correctly and the Police have taken the lead in dealing with the anti-social behaviour such as criminal damage and threats of violence. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault.
Statement Upheld Other 23-Jan-2020
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider relevant planning matters when granting outline planning permission for a development. He says this will lead to unacceptable overlooking of his garden and damage to the local ecology. The Council considered those matters relevant at this early stage, with the rest left for later, so there was no fault. However, the Council failed to refer Mr X to the Ombudsman when it responded to his complaint. It will make sure it does this in future.
Statement Not upheld Other 10-Jan-2020
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve a planning application to extend and change the use of a disused building. We did not investigate this complaint further as Mr X was not caused a significant injustice and there was no evidence of fault in the process by which the decision was made.
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.
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.
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.
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.