LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council assessed a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Authority dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Authority dealt with a planning application. This is because it is not yet possible to determine if the complainant has suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider the complainant’s concerns about how the Authority dealt with his request for information.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning application because the planning application has not been determined yet so any injustice is speculative.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Authority refused consent for a local landowner to continue to operate a car park on their land. This is because the Planning Inspectorate, rather than the Authority itself, is responsible for the final decision on the matter and we cannot question or reopen it.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Authority’s decision to grant planning permission for a development close to his home. Both the planning officer and committee considered the relevant legislation and the representations received and decided to approve the application. Without fault, this is a decision the Authority is entitled to make.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s decision to approve a planning application for a site close to the complainant’s home. We are unlikely to find fault in the process the Authority followed when coming to its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Authority dealt with possible breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Authority’s decision not to take formal enforcement action. The complainant has not been caused significant injustice because of any delays.

Summary: There was fault in how the Authority handled planning matters at a site close to Mr B’s home. It did not follow its publicity policy, it did not expressly consider the impact on his privacy, and it has taken too long to deal with breaches of planning control. The Authority should apologise to him, make a payment, and formulate an action plan as to how it will resolve the outstanding enforcement matters so that there is no avoidable delay and make sure this is communicated to residents.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Authority considered the impact of development on local parking provision, wildlife and trees. The Authority took too long to deal with breaches of planning control. However, these do not impact on Mr D.