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 2017-2018


Archive has 912 results

  • London Borough of Redbridge (17 006 992)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr B and four of his neighbours complain at the Council's approval of a development of flats behind their homes and its oversight of the development since construction began. We found the Council at fault for not doing more to ensure the developer's compliance with a 'construction plan' setting out matters such as hours of work and screening. It has agreed measures to improve such oversight. We have not upheld complaints the Council should not have approved the development or that it should have taken enforcement action in response to the developer's unauthorised land clearance.

  • London Borough of Merton (17 012 296)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way in which it considered an application by Mrs X's neighbours to make non- material amendments to their planning permission to extend their property.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (17 011 816)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr E and four of his neighbours complain at the Council's approval of a development of flats behind their homes and its oversight of the development since construction began. We found the Council at fault for not doing more to ensure the developer's compliance with a 'construction plan' setting out matters such as hours of work and screening. It has agreed measures to improve such oversight and will also apologise to Mr E for failing to consult him on one planning application. We have not upheld complaints the Council should not have approved the development or that it should have taken enforcement action in response to the developer's unauthorised land clearance.

  • East Staffordshire Borough Council (17 012 111)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider her objections to a planning application. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided the application.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (17 014 357)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr X complained about matters related to Cheshire West and Chester Council's handling of third party ownership of an area of land included in a planning application. There is no fault that has caused Mr X injustice in relation to this matter. The Council's handling of Mr X's complaint about this was poor and amounts to fault but it provided additional responses to his queries outside the complaints process so this did not cause injustice.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (17 012 706)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint alleging the Council did not notify residents of a planning application for the installation of permanent static caravans at a farm.

  • London Borough of Ealing (17 006 639)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mrs X says the Council is at fault in its handling of a planning application for a property neighbouring her home and of her subsequent reports of breaches of planning control at the site. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council in either matter and therefore he has ended his investigation of this complaint.

  • Thanet District Council (17 007 125)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault in its handling of planning matters relating to a site next to his business premises. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council and for this reason he has ended his investigation of this complaint.

  • Wycombe District Council (17 009 169)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council considered an application by Mr X's neighbour to extend his property. The Ombudsman cannot therefore question its decision to grant planning permission.

  • Chelmsford City Council (17 010 306)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr C complains about the Council's consideration of a planning application with reference to highways issues. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this matter.