Rail network planning transparency
Lack of regular revamping and republication of the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline, leading to outdated and non-transparent planning.
Source spread
Where this theme appears
This theme appears across 7 independent accountability sources, so the source mix matters as much as the headline total.
3 PFD reports
81 committee recs
1 HMICFRS rec
2 NAO recs
1 PHSO decision
37 LGO/SPSO decisions
Browse by source
Source-grouped records are useful for tracing where a concern came from. Large sections show the 50 strongest matches for that source; counts still show the full theme total.
Prevention of Future Deaths reports(3)
Malcolm Potter
Concerns: The railway crossing's warning light system, positioned before the gate, is not synchronised for multiple trains, allowing pedestrians to cross unaware of a second train. The coroner also noted the crossing type is unsuitable for a busy commuter and freight line.
Overdue
Carl Klimaytys
Concerns: The coroner raised concerns for the Three Bridges Regional Operating Centre (ROC) about the discovery of a body by a member of the public at Preston Park Station.
Response (Network Rail): • Network Rail supports safety awareness programmes, including the 'You vs Train' film and educational resources for schools and communities. • Network Rail regularly conducts seasonal publicity campaigns warning the … (AI summary)
Response (GTR): • New training for Help Point Assessment was established in February 2019, including functional tasks and a knowledge quiz. • Information resources now include access to a 'Track Access' system … (AI summary)
Responded
Patrick Bolster
Concerns: Network Rail's fence inspection procedures were inadequate, with inspectors not fully checking areas due to obstructed views and a flawed dual-submission reporting system preventing oversight. This meant inspection failures were not identified by engineers or auditors, and the initial investigation was insufficient.
Response (Network Rail): • A revised national standard for boundary fencing inspection came into force in April 2019, requiring electronic records and a new process for recording and reviewing non-tactile inspections. • A … (AI summary)
Responded
Select committee recommendations(81)— showing 50 strongest matches
#23 —
Recommendation: Given the importance of site condition and classification to the planning process and decision making there should be greater transparency over the assessment process. Natural England should publish its detailed scientific justification for any site assessment in an easily accessible …
Response attribution not verified
#30 —
Recommendation: We asked how the programme’s strategic case would recognise the wider social benefits of investments, and how decisions would prioritise catalysing growth (such as in Bradford) rather than generating marginal gains in already strong economies (such as in Leeds and …
Response status not verified
#29 —
Recommendation: The Treasury’s Northern Growth Envoy emphasised that their approach with local areas was about more than just transport and stations, but “placemaking”.63 MHCLG also set out that it was trialling ‘place-based business cases’, which consider how a set of interventions …
Response status not verified
#28 —
Recommendation: We asked the Department how it was managing interdependencies with other transport plans and how it could ensure Northern Powerhouse Rail was integrated with local transport networks, if local transport decisions were left up to mayors. The Department told us …
Response status not verified
#27 —
Recommendation: The Department was clear on the need for Northern Powerhouse Rail to integrate with local transport, stating that “maximising the benefits of major rail investment requires coherent local planning that joins up rail, regeneration and local transport [and] that is …
Response status not verified
#24 —
Recommendation: The Treasury’s Northern Growth Envoy acknowledged that “it is really hard to agree stuff across the north of England” and that “there are really difficult decisions still to come”.50 However, he said he was confident in the approach they were …
Response status not verified
#22 —
Recommendation: At the programme-wide level, the Department described “unified discussions” with mayors and ministers, where the indicative allocations for each phase of the programme will be set.45 The Treasury’s Northern Growth Envoy, who had been in post since this new role …
Response status not verified
#21 —
Recommendation: The Department explained it was working with sub-regional groups to develop the railway plans for phases 1 and 2.43 The NAO reported these delivery boards—including the Liverpool–Manchester Railway Board and the White Rose Partnership—are attended by combined authority mayors and …
Response status not verified
#20 —
Recommendation: At the local level, it has discussions with mayors and local councils about specific stations or corridors, integration with local transport and development plans, and local funding contributions.41 The NAO reported the Department has signed agreements with individual combined authorities …
Response status not verified
#7 —
Recommendation: The Northern Growth Strategy sets out how the government expects providing better connections between northern city regions and towns through Northern Powerhouse Rail to support economic growth, for example by widening the pool of workers available to firms and the …
Response status not verified
#5 —
Recommendation: The Department has not yet set out how Northern Powerhouse Rail will work alongside national and local transport plans and priorities. The government intends for Northern Powerhouse Rail to support future work to improve north-south connections on the West Coast …
Response attribution not verified
#4 —
Recommendation: The Department’s arrangements for working with local government do not appear sufficient to manage the trade-offs it will need to make on funding and scope. The Department has agreements in place with individual local areas and is working with local …
Response attribution not verified
#45 — East-west rail connectivity in the North now considered as series of programmes
Recommendation: The Department told us it is also carrying out development work on how to improve the east–west rail connectivity in the north of England. It said that this may well now be considered as a series of programmes and choices …
Response attribution not verified
#21 — Actively pursue a Veterinary Medicines Agreement with the EU to facilitate smoother trade
Recommendation: The Government should actively pursue a Veterinary Medicines Agreement with the EU in tandem with the SPS agreement to facilitate smoother trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. In its response to this report, the Government should set out its …
Response attribution not verified
#13 — Provide and publish a clear, realistic transition timetable for common SPS area
Recommendation: The Government should provide a clear, realistic transition timetable for moving to a common SPS area, published with key milestones at least 12–24 months in advance. This must not be subject to repeated changes, and implementation plans should be developed …
Response attribution not verified
#12 — Frequent border policy changes cause disruption, requiring realistic and stable timelines
Recommendation: Frequent border policy changes over recent years have created disruption, uncertainty and financial pressure for port health and local authorities. Stakeholders are clear that another shift in border regimes will only be manageable if timelines are realistic, communicated early, and …
Response attribution not verified
#6 — Urgently publish timeline for extending Awaab's Law to all hazards by March 2026.
Recommendation: The Government must urgently set and publish the timeline for extending Awaab’s Law to all remaining hazards, so that tenants and social landlords have clarity about when they can expect these new regulations to apply. This should be produced no …
Response attribution not verified
#23 — Set out clear objectives, commitments, and assessment criteria within the Long Term Rail Strategy.
Recommendation: In order to achieve this: • the Strategy should set out firm objectives on matters of long- term infrastructure policy including electrification, rolling stock, accessibility and capacity; • the Strategy should be the means for setting out commitments to the …
Response attribution not verified
#22 — Establish a Long Term Rail Strategy to provide certainty for investment priorities.
Recommendation: We welcome the provision made in the Railways Bill for a Long Term Rail Strategy: it is long past time that such a vision is set out for the railways. The Strategy must provide a basis for consensus and certainty …
Response attribution not verified
#21 — Consistent strategic vision, not decades-long pipeline, is needed for railway investment planning.
Recommendation: We found little appetite during our inquiry for a detailed, confirmed pipeline of railway projects lasting decades into the future; this would be unrealistic. What is needed instead is a consistent strategic vision that predictably informs shorter-term planning, and which …
Response attribution not verified
#20 — Lack of consistent strategic vision prevents stable railway investment pipelines.
Recommendation: A consistent strategic vision of what the railway is for and how it will contribute to the wider priorities of Government is fundamental to achieving stable investment pipelines. Successive governments have failed to articulate what they want the railway network …
Response attribution not verified
#18 — Publish an urgent rolling stock strategy, aligned with pipelines and developed with industry.
Recommendation: We welcome the Government’s commitment to publishing a rolling stock strategy in 2026: this work is urgent. The strategy must be clearly aligned with the pipeline of both major projects and enhancements, so that decisions about track and about the …
Response attribution not verified
#17 — Absence of long-term rolling stock strategy created damaging boom-and-bust investment cycles.
Recommendation: The pattern of boom and bust has been especially apparent in rolling stock investment. There is widespread agreement, including from the Government, that the absence of a long-term rolling stock strategy, aligned to a similar strategy for infrastructure, has resulted …
Response attribution not verified
#16 — Clarify relationship between UK Infrastructure Pipeline and RNEP for consistent industry information.
Recommendation: While we recognise the fledging status of the UK Infrastructure Pipeline, we are unconvinced of its current usefulness to stakeholders in the rail industry because of its lack of detail at the necessary scale. We ask the Department for Transport …
Response attribution not verified
#15 — Promptly reflect outcomes of Spending Reviews and government announcements in RNEP updates.
Recommendation: The 2025 Spending Review has provided welcome clarity on what inherited enhancements the Department is proceeding with and those which it has decided to pause. Such announcements do not, however, provide 51 information in the format or detail necessary to …
Response attribution not verified
#14 — Identify regional schemes in the RNEP and include all devolved authority enhancement projects.
Recommendation: The RNEP should also identify those schemes which are most appropriate for funding and delivery at a regional level, such as those where alignment with national objectives is not sufficient to warrant full central government funding but which would be …
Response attribution not verified
#13 — Implement ORR's review findings and identify RNEP projects suitable for private sector investment.
Recommendation: The RNEP should also be a tool for promoting rail infrastructure investment from sources other than central government. We urge the Government to implement the findings of the Office of Rail and Road’s review of the Rail Network Investment Framework, …
Response attribution not verified
#12 — Require a high viability bar for RNEP projects and regular review by key bodies.
Recommendation: The RNEP should not become an unfunded wishlist: there must be a high bar of viability for projects to be included, and a commensurately high bar for any subsequent decision to remove them from the pipeline. The inclusion and status …
Response attribution not verified
#11 — Require the RNEP to clearly set out committed funding and provide 5-year rolling certainty.
Recommendation: The RNEP should set out clearly how much funding has been committed, from what sources, and for the purpose of reaching which milestones. It should provide certainty at least five years into the future on a rolling basis, with an …
Response attribution not verified
#10 — Delay and withdrawal of immature rail schemes erodes industry and community confidence.
Recommendation: The delay or withdrawal of immature schemes is disruptive for industry and disappointing for communities who expected to benefit from new or upgraded facilities and services. It erodes confidence in the ability of the system to prioritise the right projects, …
Response attribution not verified
#9 — Revamp and annually republish the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline, reflecting all government decisions.
Recommendation: The Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline should be revamped and updated, taking account of all the decisions made by the Government on enhancements since July 2024. It should then be revised and re-published at least annually. (Recommendation, Paragraph 67)
Response attribution not verified
#8 — Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline undermined by lack of updates and immature projects.
Recommendation: The Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline (RNEP) was a sound idea, undermined by a chronic lack of updates and by poor decisions to add immature or unfunded projects to the list. If these weaknesses were 50 addressed, it could form the …
Response attribution not verified
#2 — Major rail programmes require steady, sequenced, and clearly communicated investment spending.
Recommendation: Even major programmes which should be providing a pipeline of large-scale work far into the future have previously been subject to radical changes of scope and timetable. The January 2026 announcement about Northern Powerhouse Rail brings great expectations—but at present, …
Response attribution not verified
#1 — Uncertain and uneven rail investment cycles weaken the UK rail industry sector.
Recommendation: The UK rail network is a core national asset, supporting its own industrial ecosystem and underpinning broader economic growth and employment. The message from the rail industry has been clear: investment in that asset has too often been characterised by …
Response attribution not verified
#17 —
Recommendation: As stated in our ‘Trains fit for the future?’ report, we recommend that the Department for Transport publish a long-term strategy for decarbonising the rail network as a matter of priority. This should include a vision for what proportion of …
Response attribution not verified
#28 — Lack of detailed railway mobile coverage data hinders understanding of challenges
Recommendation: The Department told us that it lacks sufficiently detailed data of coverage across the railways. To understand the coverage challenges along different stretches of track, it needs data for each metre. In 2020, the National Infrastructure Commission recommended that Ofcom …
Response attribution not verified
#9 —
Recommendation: While we welcome the positive working relationship between the Welsh and UK governments on rail infrastructure projects, we are concerned that the UK Government’s Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline (RNEP) is too slow and hampers, rather than helps, the evaluation of …
Response attribution not verified
#4 —
Recommendation: We are concerned that TfL and the Department do not have a plan to maximise the long-term, wider economic benefits of Crossrail. When open, the Elizabeth line should increase capacity in central London by around 10%, reduce journey times, improve …
Response attribution not verified
#3 —
Recommendation: It is not clear to passengers and businesses when the Elizabeth line will open or what services will be available. The Elizabeth line services will open in stages. Services have been running on the eastern and western ends of the …
Response attribution not verified
#10 —
Recommendation: A full assessment of the levelling up impact of the various NPR and HS2 Eastern leg options does not appear to have been carried out to date. The Government must ensure that the impact of NPR decisions on Bradford in …
Response attribution not verified
#7 —
Recommendation: The Government’s levelling up agenda commits it to ending geographical inequality in the UK. However, by underserving the rail needs of the North of England it is letting down those who require change the most. Upgrading lines will undoubtedly bring …
Response attribution not verified
#6 — Develop plan for frequent collection and publication of UK rail network coverage data.
Recommendation: Progress in improving connectivity on UK railways has been hampered by a lack of up-to-date coverage data. Mobile connectivity along major rail routes remains poor and passengers can often struggle to make calls, stream videos or work online. Improving rail …
Response attribution not verified
#20 —
Recommendation: The Government should set out the concrete steps it is taking to address this imbalance and to ensure Scotland can access the full benefits of the Local Power Plan, including grid connection. (Recommendation, Paragraph 116)
Response status not verified
#1 —
Recommendation: The Clean Power by 2030 target is extremely ambitious, and we would suggest the Government must use all the levers it possesses if it is to achieve it. Maintaining public confidence and rebuilding political consensus around the pace, cost and …
Response status not verified
#13 —
Recommendation: The Williams-Shapps review said that the UK Government wishes to establish a new working agreement between Great British Railways (GBR) and Transport for Wales. We believe that the Wales Rail Board we have recommended would be the correct setting in …
Response attribution not verified
#1 —
Recommendation: There is a strong environmental and economic case for substantially enhancing the rail infrastructure that serves Wales, and the passenger experience of slow services and inadequate stations only underlines the need for an upgraded network. The South East Wales Transport …
Response attribution not verified
#15 —
Recommendation: Once the central section opens, commuters must still change to other Elizabeth line services to continue their journeys on the eastern and western ends. The opening of full east-west services must align with national rail timetable changes which take place …
Response attribution not verified
#14 —
Recommendation: The Elizabeth line services will open in stages as different part of the line are completed. Services have been running on the eastern and western ends of the line (under the brand name ‘TfL Rail’) since June 2017 and May …
Response attribution not verified
#9 —
Recommendation: The potential of Bradford as an engine room of the Northern Powerhouse may be squandered if it is not given opportunities to thrive through better connectivity. Direct high speed connections would give the city access to a much broader pool …
Response attribution not verified
#8 —
Recommendation: The Government must remain open to the possibility that this thorough reassessment of the evidence base, taking full account of the impact on levelling up communities in the North and Midlands, may show that Options 2 or 3 for Northern …
Response attribution not verified
NAO audit recommendations(2)
Completing Crossrail
RfLi should set out a plan to realise and monitor the benefits of running a fully digital railway.
Accepted
Electricity networks
BEIS, working with the Department for Transport, should: e) work with Ofgem to obtain as much clarity as possible on the implications of heat and transport decarbonisation for future network requirements, in advance of Ofgem making significant decisions on how …
Accepted
Independent reviews(9)
Shaw Review of Network Rail — Rec 5
Recommendation 5: Plan the railway based on customer, passenger and freight needs. Enhancement planning should be generated from passenger and freight shipper requirements. Routes should be given the freedom to build up their plans based on these needs and recognising the role of the railway in the wider transport, economic …
Other
Oakervee Review — Rec 14
Conclusion 14: The DfT should consider making passive provision for a future HS2 station near to Calvert. There could be merit in developing a HS2 station near Calvert if local plans support a significant residential and commercial development in this region, and if there is passenger 7.
Other
Oakervee Review — Rec 13
Conclusion 13: The Review recommends removing the Handsacre connection from HS2. At the same time, Network Rail and the DfT should maintain or improve services on the WCML to Stoke-on-Trent, Staford and Macclesfield. The Review considers that the Handsacre connection would only be needed if it was decided not to …
Other
Oakervee Review — Rec 11
Conclusion 11: Transport for the North and Midlands Connect, together with Network Rail, HS2 Ltd and the DfT, should develop a plan to maximise the benefits of Phase 2b and ensure an optimised delivery model. This could be the first step in an integrated rail plan for the GB rail …
Other
Shaw Review of Network Rail — Rec 4
Recommendation 4: Clarify the government's role in the railway and Network Rail. In particular, the roles of the Department for Transport (DfT) – as funder, client and owner of Network Rail – should be considered and clarified. As the body responsible for transport in England and Wales, the DfT should …
Other
Oakervee Review — Rec 10
Conclusion 10: The government should recommit to the full Y-shaped network, linking Phase One to Manchester, the East Midlands, Yorkshire, and beyond. It only makes sense to do Phase One if continuing with northern phases to deliver transformational benefits to the North of England and Midlands.
Other
Oakervee Review — Rec 2
Conclusion 2: Inter-city connectivity is important, but so too is regional and commuter connectivity. HS2 clearly delivers inter-city improvements, but also frees capacity for regional and commuter services to be improved. There is no overarching strategy and analysis to optimise the allocation of released capacity on the basis of the …
Other
Building Better Building Beautiful Commission — Rec 5
masterplan, don’t plan by appeal. Local planning authorities should be encouraged to take a more strategic and less reactive approach to their local plans. Steps to incorporate this would include: • More clarity on what and where. The ‘plan-making’ section of the NPPF should make it clear in paragraph 16 …
Building Safety
Oakervee Review — Rec 55
Conclusion 55: If an integrated rail plan and investment programme for the Midlands and the North of England is developed (see conclusion 11 in section 6 above), the economic appraisal of this integrated rail plan and investment programme should be assessed in addition to individual projects and phases of schemes. …
Other
LGO / SPSO decisions(37)
22-002-519 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a travel refund because the Authority has provided a fair remedy.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Upheld
Jun 2022
23-011-788 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about public transport because there is not significant enough injustice to warrant our investigation.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Mar 2024
21-010-918 — London Borough of Hounslow
Summary: Mr X complains about the introduction of an experimental traffic order on a road he lives near to. He also complains about the engagement exercise the Council completed and says it was not fit for purpose. We find fault with the Council for failing to keep accurate records of …
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Upheld
May 2022
22-001-924 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the damage caused to Mr X’s cycle by a Transport for London bus. There is an alternative remedy available which it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to use.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
May 2022
22-005-406 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a £5 refund for an Oyster card. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Aug 2022
22-006-373 — Maldon District Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has conducted a ‘call for sites’ exercise as part of its Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to …
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Aug 2022
22-009-770 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about public transport. This is because the courts and insurers are better placed to consider the complaint.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Nov 2022
23-019-100 — Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to establish a pedestrian crossing outside the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jul 2024
24-005-770 — London Travelwatch
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that London Travelwatch has not properly responded to his concerns about a bus service provided by Transport for London. There is nothing to suggest Mr X has been caused a significant injustice. In addition, further investigation would not lead to a different …
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Sep 2024
24-022-249 — Liverpool City Region Combined Authority
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a travel pass because there is not enough significant injustice to justify investigation.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Apr 2025
24-023-380 — Greater London Authority
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Greater London Authority’s monitoring of expenditure under a grant it awarded Camden Council in 2018. This is because the injustice Ms X claims stems is not the direct result of any actions by the Greater London Authority and we could not …
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jul 2025
25-003-598 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Authority has blocked a device used for paying for transport on the network. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jul 2025
25-015-307 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about TfL overcharging Mr X for travel. This is because the events complained about took place more than 12 months ago. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Oct 2025
201202237 — Strathclyde Partnership for Transport
Mrs C lives in an area served by a passenger ferry service. Mrs C and a number of other users were concerned about the re-tendering exercise for this service. This was carried out by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) who were responsible for subsidising the service. Mrs C complained that …
SPSO (Scottish Public Se…
Local Government
Not Upheld
Jun 2013
25-012-682 — Transport for London
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s ‘auto-pay’ service. This is because investigation is unlikely to achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. Transport for London has refunded Mr X for a charge made in error and the further injustice Mr X describes is entirely speculative. …
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Dec 2025
25-010-998 — Buckinghamshire Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consultation and process regarding a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to change a speed limit on part of a local road, and how it dealt with his complaint. There is not enough significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by …
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Dec 2025
21-015-845 — Horsham District Council
Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council is considering the Local Plan. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Plan has not been completed and so any injustice is speculative.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Feb 2022
22-001-713 — Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the validity and impact of a tree report relating to a planning application made on a plot of land adjacent to his house. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.
LGO (Local Government & …
Environment And Regulation
May 2022
21-015-728 — Birmingham City Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement and building control matters at a property adjoining the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable …
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
May 2022
22-002-542 — Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
May 2022
22-002-413 — Devon County Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action over a development which required planning approval. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
May 2022
22-002-310 — London Borough of Camden
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s application for a certificate of lawful development. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is for the Council to …
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
May 2022
22-002-157 — Durham County Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Jun 2022
22-001-377 — London Borough of Ealing
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s planning decision allowing development at the property next door to her home. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Jun 2022
22-001-349 — Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council
Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission to a neighbour. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and the matter is out of time.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Jun 2022
22-002-470 — Leeds City Council
Summary: Mr B complains the Council misled the Planning Inspector and miscalculated the amount he had to pay in costs. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint because Mr B appealed to the Planning Inspectorate on the substantive issue.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Jun 2022
22-002-452 — Cheshire East Council
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We cannot investigate complaints made by public bodies such as parish councils.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Jun 2022
21-016-469 — Derbyshire County Council
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a walking and cycling route in his area which includes a proposal to permanently close a road near to him. Mr X said the Council failed to properly consult about the scheme.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Upheld
Jun 2022
22-002-759 — Liverpool City Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in determining a planning application as there is a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Jun 2022
21-006-625 — East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against her neighbour’s development. We have not found the Council to be at fault because it properly investigated her concerns. We did not investigate Miss X’s complaint about planning permission granted to her neighbour in 2018 because it …
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Not Upheld
Jun 2022
22-002-845 — London Borough of Waltham Forest
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the permits scheme for a restricted parking zone near Ms X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jun 2022
22-002-686 — East Sussex County Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs J’s complaint about the Council’s decision to install a shared cycle path in a local park. We have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jun 2022
22-002-187 — London Borough of Waltham Forest
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to install double yellow lines. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it made that decision to justify our involvement.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Jun 2022
24-006-112 — Lake District National Park Authority
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 …
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Aug 2024
24-007-214 — London Borough of Camden
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint Mrs X made about the Council’s responsibility for bus lanes and cycle lanes. We cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking.
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Sep 2024
24-009-227 — Lancashire County Council
Summary: Mr X complained of the Council’s handling of a Definitive Map Modification Order which was submitted in 2018 regarding a pathway. He said the Council has failed to submit the order to the Planning Inspectorate for it to consider and therefore a decision has still not been made whether …
LGO (Local Government & …
Transport And Highways
Upheld
May 2025
25-012-345 — Horsham District Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information provided in a local plan. The complaint is late and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to bring the matter to us sooner.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Jan 2026