Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Planning applications archive 2016-2017


Archive has 441 results

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Wychavon District Council (16 009 418)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in how it determined the planning permission regularising Mrs Y's as-built property conversion, which neighbours Mr and Mrs X. Officers properly reached their professional judgements on the impacts of the property on Mr and Mrs X's property. There are no grounds to go behind those merits decisions. Mr and Mrs X's complaint that Mrs Y's property encroaches on to their land is a private civil issue which is not a material planning matter for the Council to consider.