Archive has 1305 results
-
West Sussex County Council (19 004 242)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 23-Mar-2020
Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not properly consider its own policies when approving a planning application. She says the Council’s decision led to an increase in the number of HGV’s using a road near her home. This causes problems with noise, pollution and road safety. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council considered the planning application or responded to Mrs B’s concerns.
-
West Sussex County Council (19 006 185)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 23-Mar-2020
Summary: Mr X complains about planning permission for a development which would increase HGV traffic. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the complaint is out of time.
-
West Devon Borough Council (19 008 086)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 23-Mar-2020
Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council considered the impact of a development on local people, wildlife or local highways. I intend to stop my investigation into development outside the settlement boundary and the impact of development on a local footpath as any potential fault has not caused Mr X an injustice.
-
Arun District Council (19 009 916)
Statement Not upheld Other 23-Mar-2020
Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with planning applications to vary access arrangements to residential developments on land next to Mr and Mrs X’s home.
-
Northumberland County Council (19 011 956)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 23-Mar-2020
Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to notify him of a neighbour’s planning application. The Council agreed it should have notified him and has apologised. We do not consider the fault affected the outcome.
-
London Borough of Hillingdon (19 020 172)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 23-Mar-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because Mr X has exercised his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
-
Cheshire East Council (19 019 075)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 23-Mar-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to accept and determine a ‘reserved matters’ planning application for a residential development across the road from his house. The Council’s actions do not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
-
Birmingham City Council (19 019 123)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 23-Mar-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his planning application. As a planning applicant, Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s delay in determining the application. Mr X had a further PINS appeal right once the Council refused the application. The appeal was the appropriate formal route for him to follow to challenge the decision and how it was made, and to seek the permission he wants. It was reasonable for Mr X to have used his Planning Inspectorate appeal rights.
-
East Cambridgeshire District Council (19 018 686)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 23-Mar-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his planning application. Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate on the matter. The Ombudsman cannot investigate when someone has used that appeal right. The use of that appeal takes the matter outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 21-Mar-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s extension. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise its discretion to investigate.