Planning applications archive 2016-2017


Archive has 952 results

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Birmingham City Council (16 011 428)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council considered an application from Mr B's neighbour to build an extension under the prior approval process. There was also no fault in the way the Council considered what action to take in respect of an unauthorised patio area and steps to the rear of the extension.

  • Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council (16 013 263)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault for some errors in a report which considered a planning application after a developer failed to comply with a condition on the positioning of a window. The Council could also have better handled a complaint about this and other matters. It has agreed to apologise. However, it is not considered the Council would have made any different decision on the planning application if the errors had not occurred.

  • Birmingham City Council (16 011 246)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: There is no fault with how the Council has dealt with an application to replace a leisure facility with a residential development.

  • Epping Forest District Council (16 018 493)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's refusal of his planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there was a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

  • Slough Borough Council (16 014 238)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: The planning manager's decision not to place a condition on a planning application was made without fault. He considered the views of the planning officer, Mr S and ward Councillor before deciding there was no evidence to support its use. The manager did not agree to a late call in of the planning application, as he had already reached a view that the Council could not defend the use of the planning condition at appeal.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (16 013 139)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: When deciding to grant planning permission for an anaerobic digester waste unit the Council followed the correct procedure and had before it all relevant information including detailed objections and so acted without fault.

;