Planning archive 2013-2014


Archive has 1171 results

  • London Borough of Enfield (13 015 564)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2014

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X say the Council is at fault in its consideration of their neighbour's planning application. I have found no material fault in how it decided the application. I have therefore ended my investigation.

  • London Borough of Islington (13 006 710)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2014

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with an application to build more houses on Mr X's council housing estate. Nor was there any fault in the way it decided to approve the proposal. There was fault in the Council's failure to respond to Mr X's second stage complaint, which the Council has accepted.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (13 020 405)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Building control 31-Mar-2014

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to identify defects in the roof of her extension when it issued a completion certificate for an extension in 2003. I have not investigated this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part which has caused injustice to Mrs X.

  • Aylesbury Vale District Council (13 000 699)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2014

    Summary: Mr C complains that there was fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission for the re-siting, retention and construction of buildings for the rearing and slaughter of poultry and pigs on land next to his home. The Ombudsman considers there was no fault in how the Council considered the application.

  • London Borough of Enfield (13 000 812)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 31-Mar-2014

    Summary: The Ombudsman has closed a complaint involving delay before the Council took action on a planning enforcement matter, and inadequate compensation offered by the Council. The Ombudsman found fault by the Council but closed the complaint because the Council's offer of compensation was adequate to remedy the injustice to Mr X.

  • Aylesbury Vale District Council (13 005 049)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2014

    Summary: Mr B complains that there was fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission for the re-siting, retention and construction of buildings for the rearing and slaughter of poultry and pigs on land next to his home. The Ombudsman considers there was no fault in how the Council considered the application.

  • New Forest National Park Authority (13 017 873)

    Statement Not upheld Other 31-Mar-2014

    Summary: There was no fault in how the Council dealt with the planning issues Mr X complained of. Even if there were fault, this would not have caused injustice to him which would warrant further Ombudsman involvement. Mr X's related complaint about sewerage is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  • Waveney District Council (13 010 781)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2014

    Summary: Mr X says the Council did not consider his objections when considering a planning application for a site near his home. I have found no evidence of fault in the Council's consideration of the application. Therefore I have ended my investigation.

  • London Borough of Merton (13 012 567)

    Statement Not upheld Building control 31-Mar-2014

    Summary: The Council admitted it was at fault when it approved substandard building work. It offered to rebuild the extension and consider a payment in recognition of the complainant's financial losses. The Ombudsman decided that the Council's offer was reasonable. The Council was not wrong to wait for the complainant to formally accept its offer before it started the work.

  • South Gloucestershire Council (13 014 155)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2014

    Summary: Mrs B complains the Council failed to properly consider her neighbour's planning application for a stable block. There was administrative fault.

;