Planning advice archive 2019-2020


Archive has 29 results

  • Colchester Borough Council (19 020 160)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 30-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council gave misleading advice about the need for planning permission for replacement windows. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (19 018 614)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 20-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

  • Dartmoor National Park Authority (19 009 752)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 21-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Authority failed to provide her with written pre-application advice that she had paid for. Despite early, positive assurances from the planning officer, her planning application was eventually refused. Mrs X claims significant sums of money she says were lost as a result of the Authority's actions. We found fault in the way the Authority made its decision, but we do not recommend a further remedy beyond the Authority's offer to refund the fee for pre-application planning advice.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 969)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 12-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr C's complaint that the Council lied about changes in law, was inconsistent when considering his planning applications and unnecessarily asked for further information. This is because Mr C appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and the Ombudsman has no discretion to investigate.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 119)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 12-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr F complains the Council gave him incorrect pre-application planning advice that he did not need to apply for planning permission for change of use of his property. The Ombudsman has found fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr F, which is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Sevenoaks District Council (19 017 712)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 05-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with her planning applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because she appealed to a Planning Inspector.

  • Cherwell District Council (19 001 364)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 31-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide an adequate remedy following a decision the Ombudsman made in February 2017. It is too late now to ask for a review of our previous decision and the complaint is also outside our time limits for investigation. For these reasons, we should not investigate this complaint further now.

  • Mendip District Council (19 015 080)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 29-Jan-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr Q's complaint about the handling of his planning applications. This is because he has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

  • Dorset Council (19 006 027)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 22-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave incorrect pre-application advice. This led to him submitting a planning application that had no chance of being approved. We have found fault with the Council for issuing poor advice. This resulted in Mr X proceeding with an application and paying architect fees. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X the value of the architect fees to remedy his injustice.

  • North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 019 756)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 07-Jan-2020

    Summary: The Council was at fault only in providing inadequate advice when officers first became aware the extension Mr and Mrs J were building breached planning controls. But there was no significant injustice. It was unclear that firmer advice would have resulted in proposals that the Council could have approved sooner, and without Mr and Mrs J incurring costs for professional advice.

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.