Planning applications archive 2015-2016


Archive has 1032 results

  • Suffolk County Council (14 020 289)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in not enforcing a Section 106 agreement for £50k, and in not implementing the traffic mitigation measures this sum was intended to fund.

  • Stafford Borough Council (15 000 826)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Council was correct in stating that development had commenced previously on a site adjoining Mr B' and Ms C's home, meaning there was existing planning permission for seven houses. The Council was not responsible for the actions of the developer in wrongly removing their boundary hedge although it agreed to oversee the replanting of a new hedge at the developer's expense. The Council was at fault over delays in replying to the formal complaint and Mr B's initial enquiry.

  • Eastleigh Borough Council (15 008 371)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: Mr X alleges fault in the way the Council decided a planning application and says the Council failed to keep him informed of its deliberations on the possible local listing of a building. There was no fault in the way the Council decided the planning application but it did not keep Mr X informed of proceedings with the local listing. The Council apologised to Mr X and this was an adequate remedy for the injustice he suffered.

  • Maldon District Council (15 004 995)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has considered Mr X's neighbour's planning application.

  • Cherwell District Council (15 006 185)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman has found some evidence of fault in how the Council handled Mr X's complaints and its decision to class him as a vexatious complainant. She has also identified some delay in progressing action against the proprietor of the hot food takeaway Mr X complained about. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £200 in recognition of the uncertainty caused to him as a result of the identified fault and to clarify when his status as a vexatious complaint will be reviewed. The Ombudsman did not find any evidence of fault in the Council's approach to dealing with the nuisance from the takeaway.

  • Leeds City Council (15 011 560)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered an application to build a large housing development near Ms A's home.

  • Bournemouth Borough Council (15 011 431)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Council acted without fault when it granted permission for an extension to the property neighbouring the complainant.

  • Wokingham Borough Council (15 013 316)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman has found no fault in the Council's handling of Mr B's planning application for a new three-bedroom bungalow, except for a month's delay in approving the application. However, as Mr B could have appealed against non-determination, the Ombudsman is not minded to seek compensation for this delay.

  • West Oxfordshire District Council (15 013 924)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X say the Council wrongly granted planning permission for a neighbouring development. The Ombudsman did not find any evidence of fault by the Council and therefore she has ended her investigation of this complaint.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (14 016 427)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Council was at fault for not responding sooner to concerns about the quality of information provided by a developer in support of a planning application, later withdrawn. When a later application was considered the Council also did not make hard copy documents available to the complainant's agent. Both these faults caused injustice as the Council put the complainant, via his agent, to unnecessary time, trouble and expense. The Council agrees to take action to remedy this injustice. However, other parts of the complaint are not upheld as the Council is found not to have been at fault or else any fault did not cause injustice to the complainant.