City of Doncaster Council (24 013 808)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Jan-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a certificate of existing lawful use or development for Mr X’s neighbour to conduct a business from home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application before making its decision. Also, the Council confirms an investigation into reports the neighbour is breaching the certificate remains ongoing.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 010 946)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 15-Jan-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council asking a neighbour to photograph the complainant and her home. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. And it is reasonable to expect the complainant to raise their concerns with the Information Commissioner.

Eastbourne Borough Council (24 005 658)

Statement Not upheld Other 10-Jan-2025

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council. The planning legal agreement says the developer ‘may elect to transfer’ public open space to the Council. The Council has reached a decision not to use the dispute resolution process over the space which Mr X wants it to do. The owner of the land is responsible for repairs to the area.

Dover District Council (24 015 008)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 06-Jan-2025

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint made on behalf of a Parish Council about the Council’s lack of planning enforcement. This is because we cannot investigate complaints from a public body.

Dover District Council (24 001 693)

Statement Upheld Other 20-Dec-2024

Summary: X complained the Council failed to use its powers to ensure a project aimed at providing a public benefit to the area. The Council accepted there was fault, as it cannot now explain why it did not require improvements to the land as it had once intended. It has also agreed it needs to review its practice and procedure to avoid similar fault in future. We found fault because records were missing from the Council’s planning register. We completed our investigation because the Council agrees to our recommendations.

Epping Forest District Council (24 014 936)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 19-Dec-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Manchester City Council (24 012 824)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 19-Dec-2024

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to take action against reports of noise nuisance and breaches of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complainants’ reports to justify an investigation.

City of York Council (24 012 803)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 18-Dec-2024

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant has not suffered significant personal injustice from the result.

Telford & Wrekin Council (24 013 884)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Dec-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-planning application advice. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

London Borough of Hounslow (24 014 762)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Dec-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his client’s planning application. This is the issue carried a right of appeal which it would have been reasonable for Mr X/his client to use. Mr X has now appealed against the Council’s decision to refuse his client’s application and we cannot therefore investigate any concerns about the Council’s handling of the application or his complaint. This is because doing so would overlap with the appealable issues and the issue does not in any event cause Mr X significant injustice.