Archive has 225 results
-
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021
Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of Ms Q about the Council’s handling of two planning applications and a planning enforcement investigation. We will not investigate concerns about the first planning application because the complaint about it is too late. In our view, there is no evidence of procedural fault in the other matters complained about, or they caused little or no injustice to Ms Q, so we have not investigated them further. The Council’s apology for the fault identified in its handling of Mr Y’s complaint is sufficient and we do not propose anything further.
-
Ashfield District Council (20 001 406)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021
Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it considered taking enforcement action against Mr X’s neighbours for removing a hedgerow to erect a fence.
-
London Borough of Hackney (20 001 757)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021
Summary: Ms E complained the Council excluded her from the planning process by not informing her about a planning application for a development near where she lives. She also complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint. We find there was no fault in the Council not informing Ms E about the planning application. However, the Council was at fault as the case officer’s report did not sufficiently consider the impact of the planning application on Ms E’s amenity. This did not cause her a significant injustice. There was further fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms E’s complaint. It apologised to her and confirmed it had reminded relevant members of staff about the correct complaints procedure to follow. This is a suitable remedy.
-
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021
Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of Mr Z about the Council’s handling of two planning applications and a planning enforcement investigation. We will not investigate concerns about the first planning application because the complaint about it is too late. In our view, there is no evidence of procedural fault in the other matters complained about, or they caused little or no injustice to Mr Z, so we have not investigated them further. The Council’s apology for the fault identified in its handling of Mr Y’s complaint is sufficient and we do not propose anything further.
-
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021
Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of Mr X about the Council’s handling of two planning applications and a planning enforcement investigation. We will not investigate concerns about the first planning application because Mr X has previously complained to the Ombudsman about this, and we decided not to investigate as the complaint was late. There is no procedural fault in the other matters complained about, or they caused little or no injustice to Mr X, so we have not investigated them further. The Council’s apology for the fault identified in its handling of Mr Y’s complaint is sufficient and we do not recommend anything further.
-
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve the change of use of a building next to his home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.
-
Birmingham City Council (20 005 914)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021
Summary: Ms X complained the Council granted planning permission to complete renovation works to increase the number of HMO tenants at the property neighbouring hers from six to nine. Ms X complained the Council did not adequately consider the concerns she raised about the impact on her privacy and amenity and on the residential character of the road. The Ombudsman does not find the fault by the Council caused an injustice to Ms X.
-
Cheshire East Council (19 014 245)
Statement Upheld Enforcement 31-Mar-2021
Summary: Mr Q complains about the Council’s response to various matters connected to problems he reports with waterlogging and flooding of land. We find fault in how the Council has reviewed drainage arrangements serving a nearby housing development, agreed following an earlier complaint. We consider this fault has cause injustice to Mr Q (and others) in the form of ongoing uncertainty about whether more might be done to alleviate the problems he reports. The Council accepts this finding and has agreed action to remedy this injustice. The details are set out at the end of this statement.
-
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 003)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 30-Mar-2021
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbours’ planning application for retrospective approval of a rear extension. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision to approve the application. So we cannot question the merits of the decision. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr Q wants.
-
Birmingham City Council (19 001 144)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2021
Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council reached decisions on two planning applications submitted by Mrs X’s neighbours. However, the Council failed to keep Mrs X informed of its investigations into her concerns that the development was not being built to plan. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and pay her a financial remedy to acknowledge the unnecessary time and trouble it caused her.