Planning archive 2005-2006


Archive has 26 results

  • London Borough of Southwark (04B06313)

    Report Upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2006

    Summary: 'Mrs Shelley' (not her real name for legal reasons) complained that the Council did not consult her about revised plans for a proposed development next door to her property. She had not been given the opportunity to comment on the changes and considered them to have badly affected her amenity.

  • Isle of Wight Council (05B00785)

    Report Upheld Enforcement 30-Mar-2006

    Summary: The Council received a planning application in March 2003 for continued use of land for motorcross and associated engineering works. Extensive earthworks were then carried out. 'Mr and Mrs Knight' (not their real names for legal reasons) said that they were affected by noise from the site. They had a number of criticisms about the way the Council considered this application.

  • North Shropshire District Council (05B00163)

    Report Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2006

    Summary: 'Mr and Mrs Smith' (not their real names for legal reasons) live next door to a development site on which the developer applied to build two semi-detached houses. The application was recommended for refusal because of the impact on Mr and Mrs Smith's bungalow. Members of the Committee made a site visit and voted to refuse the application. They indicated that they would be willing to approve an application for smaller houses on a larger site.

  • Rossendale Borough Council (04C07580)

    Report Upheld Enforcement 28-Feb-2006

    Summary: 'Mr and Mrs Smith' (not their real names) and four of their neighbours complained that the Council failed to take effective enforcement action against a factory causing a noise nuisance close to their homes, and that, in particular, the Council failed to take effective planning enforcement action against a breach of planning permission when the Council placed skips near their home.

  • Bradford City Council (04C08279)

    Report Upheld Enforcement 23-Jan-2006

    Summary: 'Mr Howard' (not his real name for legal reasons) complained that the Council failed to enforce conditions attached to planning permission for development on land adjacent to his home. Mr Howard complained that the developer has constructed walls (one retaining wall and one boundary wall), one on top of the other, to a height of 2.7 metres, and this has had an overbearing impact upon his property and left his home and garden without proper privacy.

  • London Borough of Southwark (05B02405)

    Report Upheld Planning applications 16-Jan-2006

    Summary: A company wished to erect a telecommunications mast in a residential area. A pre-application consultation exercise was carried out, attracting 83 responses and revealing widespread opposition to the idea. When the Council received a planning application, it publicised it by posting a site notice, which was the legal minimum form of publicity required, and by letter to the local conservation society. The Council did not receive any representations apart from those submitted by the society. The application was approved by officers acting under delegated powers, whereas if representations had been received the application would have been referred to the Community Council for the local area for a decision.

  • Carlisle City Council (04C13744)

    Report Upheld Planning applications 16-Jan-2006

    Summary: 'Mr and Mrs Callahan' (not their real names) complained about the Council's handling of a planning application for a substantial extension to their neighbour's home.

  • Bedford Borough Council (04B16901)

    Report Upheld Planning applications 12-Jan-2006

    Summary: 'Mr Vincent' (not his real name) lived close to a field used by a model aircraft club. The Council received complaints about noise in autumn 2003, but did not investigate until summer 2004, partly because flying ceased over the winter. The Council did not decide whether the activities caused a statutory noise nuisance. The activities did not have planning permission and the Council asked the flying club to make an application. The Ombudsman considered that the Council missed an opportunity to take noise readings to decide whether noise levels were acceptable before determining the planning application.

  • London Borough of Merton (04B09253)

    Report Upheld Planning applications 15-Dec-2005

    Summary: 'Mr Rose' (not his real name for legal reasons) lived in an upstairs flat next door to a takeaway. In May 1999 he complained to the Council about the vibration, noise and smells from the ventilation system installed without the benefit of planning permission. He also complained about its appearance.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (04C16029)

    Report Upheld Planning advice 12-Dec-2005

    Summary: 'Miss Marsh' (not her real name for legal reasons) complained that the Council gave both her and her neighbour wrong advice about whether developments in her neighbour's garden required planning permission, failed to investigate matters properly when she raised them, failed to investigate a possible change of use of his property, and failed to deal with her complaints in confidence.

;