Planning applications archive 2014-2015


Archive has 387 results

  • North Hertfordshire District Council (14 007 566)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of a planning application in the village where Mr X lives. However she does not consider the identified fault altered the outcome of the Planning Committee's decision. She found no evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of Mr X's complaint about the conduct of a councillor. For these reasons she has ended her investigation of this complaint.

  • Hyndburn Borough Council (14 011 435)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2015

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to tell him about his neighbour's application for an extension so he could not raise any objections. Based on the evidence it seems likely the Council did write to Mr X. There is fault in the Council's decision to grant prior approval for the extension as it did not apply prior approval permitted development rules to the proposed development. However the Council has negotiated with Mr X's neighbour and the extension now complies with the relevant permitted development rules. Therefore there is no outstanding injustice to Mr X.

  • Blackpool Borough Council (14 013 168)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2015

    Summary: The Council failed to consider the impact of a new balcony on Mr X's property when it granted planning permission. However this has not caused Mr X an injustice as it is likely the Council would still have granted planning permission if it had considered the impact on him.

  • Oxford City Council (14 013 890)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2015

    Summary: I have not upheld Mrs B's complaints. The Council properly considered whether it should take enforcement action when a neighbouring development failed to meet the approved plans. The Council has been able to properly assess all the planning proposals on this site, even if some of the submitted plans have been inaccurate.

  • Christchurch Borough Council (14 019 583)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 30-Mar-2015

    Summary: Mr X complains about the flooding of a highway which he believes will be exacerbated by a development of houses recently granted planning permission. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of maladministration by the Council.

  • North Somerset Council (14 012 605)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2015

    Summary: The Council was at fault in not properly assessing the adverse impact of new windows in a side elevation on Mr E's residential amenity. But, it was unclear that the Council's decisions would have been different if not for this fault.

  • Melton Borough Council (14 007 601)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2015

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to consult him on a planning application. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

  • Selby District Council (14 014 193)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of a planning application for a site near Mr X's home. Therefore she has ended her investigation.

  • Maidstone Borough Council (14 015 354)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2015

    Summary: I find the Council was not at fault regarding the way it considered a planning application for an extension next to Mr and Mrs L's home.

  • London Borough of Croydon (14 016 770)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2015

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it considered a planning application for a development at a property next to Mr X's house.