Planning archive 2015-2016


Archive has 1567 results

  • Horsham District Council (14 020 108)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Council was at fault in its handling of both planning applications for, and Ms X's complaint about, development of land. The Council should apologise to Ms X but, its faults did not cause the key injustice about which Ms X complains.

  • Huntingdonshire District Council (13 016 665)

    Statement Not upheld Other 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The complaint is about the Council's delay in dealing with an unauthorised change of use of land. I see no fault causing a significant injustice in the Council's actions. And the delay is mainly due to the applicant not providing information the Council has requested.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • North Kesteven District Council (15 009 007)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the planning application for the land behind Mrs A's home. There is also no evidence of fault in the Council's decision not to take over the maintenance of a tree belt planted in 1997.

  • 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.

  • 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.

;