Planning advice archive 2017-2018


Archive has 27 results

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (17 008 189)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 16-Mar-2018

    Summary: The complaint is about pre-application planning advice that was not complete. I have upheld the complaint and recommended a remedy, although this does not meet the complainant's analysis of the injustice he suffered.

  • Malvern Hills District Council (17 018 417)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 16-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains that she has received misleading advice as to whether a planning application for a garage would succeed. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault and only a formal planning application could decide the matter.

  • South Hams District Council (17 017 563)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 09-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's late complaint about the Council's handling of his planning application and its pre-application advice. It was the Council's decision which caused Mr X's substantive injustice and if he was unhappy with this it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

  • Wycombe District Council (17 011 588)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 23-Feb-2018

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council misled her about the prospects for approval for housing development on agricultural land. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council has acted.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (17 016 106)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 06-Feb-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of a pre-application meeting to discuss a planning proposal. The Council has apologised to Mrs X and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more.

  • Folkestone & Hythe District Council (17 007 144)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 22-Dec-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council's pre-application planning advice was inadequate. Mr X has a private remedy for any alleged failings in the pre-application advice. Some fault was found in the way the Council made its planning decision, but this caused no significant injustice to Mr X or made a difference to the outcome.

  • Portsmouth City Council (17 000 615)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 19-Dec-2017

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council gave him wrong advice about making a pre-application enquiry on a planning matter. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault and he recommends it pay Mr X compensation.

  • Newark & Sherwood District Council (17 012 469)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 11-Dec-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's refusal of his planning application following initial advice from its officers. We should not to investigate this complaint. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which is the proper authority to decide planning appeals.

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (17 009 517)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 07-Dec-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to advise his proposal to extend his property was not 'permitted development'. The injustice he claims is speculative and stems from his decision to begin work without formal confirmation rather than any fault by the Council.

  • Chichester District Council (16 018 849)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 03-Nov-2017

    Summary: Ms B considers that the Council wrongly advised her that she would have no problem getting planning permission to use an industrial unit for roast coffee. When she did not get the planning permission, she incurred financial losses and reputational damage, and experienced considerable stress. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council advised Ms B. The delay reaching a decision on the planning application and the decision to refuse planning permission are outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

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.