Planning archive 2016-2017


Archive has 1387 results

  • Wakefield City Council (16 018 109)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about alleged failure by the Council to take enforcement action about a breach of planning control. This is because he is unlikely to find fault in the Council's actions.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (16 016 923)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision on his planning application and the subsequent response to his enquiries. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint. He could have appealed the Council's planning decision. Any injustice to Mr X from any delay in the Council providing advice is not enough to justify an investigation.

  • Blackpool Borough Council (16 013 827)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council's failure to control their neighbour who has not completed building a house extension. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision not to take enforcement action.

  • Cornwall Council (16 013 082)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's refusal to grant a certificate of lawful development for a building on his land. This is because he has already appealed to the planning inspectorate and the complaint is late.

  • Woking Borough Council (16 012 143)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council considered Miss C's neighbour's planning application to extend his home. The Ombudsman cannot therefore question its decision to grant planning permission. There was also no fault in the Council's decision to invite a new planning application to regularise a breach of planning control. This will be considered through the usual planning process.

  • South Lakeland District Council (16 012 906)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's decision to approve a planning application without consulting her. There was fault in the way the Council made its decision, but this caused no injustice to Mrs X.

  • Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (16 003 118)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: There is evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with an application to extend the property behind Mrs X's home.

  • Fenland District Council (16 009 104)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to issue a Certificate of Lawful Use in respect of business activities at a residential property, and its refusal to take enforcement action about an alleged planning breach. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council to justify our intervention.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (16 007 897)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council's failure to take enforcement action against their neighbour for building a loft conversion without planning permission. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (16 012 705)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council has failed to control an unlawful business which operates on land behind their home. We should not continue our investigation because planning and environmental control procedures are underway. Mr and Mrs X may come back to the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied at the end of the processes.

;