Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Epping Forest District Council (18 013 006)

    Statement Not upheld Other 03-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complains the Council allowed her neighbour to build an extension that affects her privacy. This has caused her significant stress and loss of amenity in her home. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the Council's decision to recognise the extension as a permitted development.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (18 013 965)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Mar-2019

    Summary: There was some fault in how the Council handled an application for a dropped kerb, which it has already acknowledged. But its policy still would not allow a dropped kerb at the complainant's property, and so the Ombudsman does not consider the fault to have caused an injustice. For this reason, he has completed his investigation.

  • London Borough of Haringey (18 009 371)

    Statement Not upheld Other 25-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not inform him that it had allowed a developer to carry out works that will cause noise and disturb him. There was no fault in the way the Council has acted.

  • Bath and North East Somerset Council (18 007 260)

    Statement Not upheld Other 22-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr L's complaint about its communication with him about the Community Infrastructure Levy, his invalid Commencement Notice, or giving misleading information to him, his MP, and councillors. Mr L's complaints about using the wrong guidance when applying conditions to planning consent, failing to refund the fee paid for his discharge of condition application, and adding a surcharge are all outside of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  • Shropshire Council (18 000 607)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Dec-2018

    Summary: The Council took a suitable approach to planning enforcement action on a site but allowed a short period of undue delay which caused the complainant unnecessary frustration. The Council did not keep adequate records of its actions, which was fault.

  • London Borough of Ealing (17 014 188)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Nov-2018

    Summary: The Council provided wrong information about the location of a telecommunications mast in 2015 which meant it did not investigate whether a planning breach occurred. It has also delayed responding to the complainant. The Council's apology, provision of correct information and investigation into the original complaint about the increase in thickness of the mast remedies this complaint.

  • Manchester City Council (18 007 308)

    Statement Not upheld Other 22-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not properly consider the impact on him when it approved planning permission for an extension to a neighbouring property. He says the owner is not building the extension in line with the approved plan. The Ombudsman finds the Council is not at fault in how it considered the application. It is acting appropriately to address concerns about the extension not being built to plan.

  • Three Rivers District Council (18 007 715)

    Statement Not upheld Other 24-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council was wrong to withdraw a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) exemption in respect of an extension to his home. He complains the Council failed to take account of the law and as a result the Council wrongly charged him a CIL levy of £27,124.20 which it should now refund. We found the Council was not at fault.

  • London Borough of Barnet (17 017 802)

    Statement Not upheld Other 19-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Council reached a view on the lawfulness of a development through the correct process and properly investigated other concerns about breaches of planning control caused by the complainants' neighbour. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the matter which has been appealed to the Planning Inspector because that process is not yet complete.

  • Cornwall Council (18 001 224)

    Statement Not upheld Other 19-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's failure over a number of years to protect certain building and heritage assets in the area where he lives. Mr B and his co-complainants have not suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the issues about which they complain. Nor is it in the wider public interest to investigate the matters raised. I am not, therefore, going to investigate the complaint further