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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Lichfield District Council (20 009 086)

    Statement Upheld Other 30-May-2022

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not ensured community facilities and open spaces are properly provided on a newly built housing estate. He says this means residents are living on the estate without promised facilities and with the likelihood of high maintenance costs for the open spaces. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council has managed the community centre. However, we find fault in how the Council considered Mr B's concerns about the open spaces.

  • Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 478)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-May-2022

    Summary: There was fault by the Council as it identified breaches of pre-commencement planning conditions in February 2021 but has supplied no evidence that it has taken any action since then. The Council's proposal to review progress and in addition, to tell Mr X of the result, remedies the injustice. Mr X complains about damage to his property by the developer because of the delay, but damage to property is a private matter between him and the developer.

  • Hambleton District Council (21 007 402)

    Statement Not upheld Other 24-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider the impact of raised ground levels on a new housing development would have on her amenity when it discharged a planning condition. We ended this investigation because although we are likely to find fault, we cannot properly assess what injustice this has caused Mrs X until the planning process is completed and landscaping measures required by a planning condition are implemented.

  • Bristol City Council (21 005 378)

    Statement Upheld Other 11-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr F complains that the Council failed to include advice about residents parking within planning decisions on a property he is developing. We found there was fault by the Council but this did not cause injustice to Mr F.

  • Stratford-on-Avon District Council (21 013 811)

    Statement Not upheld Other 04-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Council's actions did not lead to the injustice claimed by the complainant so no further investigation is warranted. Even if the Council was at fault, Mr X would have never had a right of review or appeal against a Community Infrastructure Levy on his housing development as he had commenced work before the Community Infrastructure Levy process began.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 017 677)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains about delay by the Council in removing comments in a planning case. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied.

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 973)

    Statement Not upheld Other 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: We found no fault in how the Council publicised a planning application for development near Mrs X's home.

  • Vale of White Horse District Council (21 006 970)

    Statement Not upheld Other 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's handling of a planning and environmental health matter concerning a village shop and café. The Council did not intend to prevent the café serving hot food and so it is not fault that the planning permission allows this. The Council has also given adequate reasons why it does not consider the café is causing a statutory odour nuisance. For this reason, we have completed our investigation.

  • Herefordshire Council (21 011 429)

    Statement Not upheld Other 16-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her concerns about development on agricultural land near her home. We ended our investigation because the Council is considering a planning application relating to the land and we are unlikely to find evidence of a significant injustice to Mrs X.

  • Wychavon District Council (21 007 263)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council provided incorrect information in local land charges searches regarding the Permitted Development rights for a property he purchased. The Council's failure to record the removal of permitted development rights as a local land charge which is discoverable through a search of the local land charges register is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.