Worcester City Council (20 005 375)

Statement Upheld Planning advice 15-Feb-2021

Summary: The Council gave Mr X incorrect information about the potential to convert a property to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). Mr X bought the property and lost out as a result of the Council’s error. We recommended the Council meet a proportion of the costs Mr X incurred as a result of the error.

London Borough of Bexley (20 000 325)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 01-Feb-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning advice given more than 20 years ago. It is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different result. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Norwich City Council (20 009 058)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 01-Feb-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X and Mr and Mrs Y’s complaint about the handling of their pre-application advice requests. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing them significant injustice.

South Staffordshire District Council (19 016 292)

Statement Upheld Planning advice 29-Jan-2021

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to address all the issues he raised when providing him with pre-application advice and gave him wrong information. There is no fault in the pre-application planning advice the Council gave. The Council failed to refer the third pre-application advice request to an external officer though which raised Mr B’s expectations. An apology is satisfactory remedy. I have not investigated Mr B’s concern about how the Council processed his planning applications as he had a right of appeal.

Rutland County Council (19 012 407)

Statement Upheld Planning advice 15-Dec-2020

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s consideration of planning matters relating to solar panels and sheds he erected on his land. He considered the Council considered them on the wrong planning basis and charged him too much in planning fees. There was fault in the Council’s advice which caused injustice to Mr B. The Council will apologise and refund the extra planning fee paid.

South Gloucestershire Council (19 020 417)

Statement Upheld Planning advice 27-Nov-2020

Summary: Mr X complains the Council gave him misleading pre-planning application advice about a proposed extension at a community centre. Mr X said this led him to spend money on a full planning application which the Council subsequently said it would refuse. The Council was at fault for accepting Mr X’s pre-planning application without the required information and for failing to keep proper records. It was however Mr X’s choice to proceed with a full planning application. The Council agreed to pay Mr X a total of £357.70 to recognise the frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble caused. It also agreed to explain what service improvements it has carried out to prevent recurrence of the faults.

South Holland District Council (20 006 107)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 13-Nov-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications or the pre-application advice it gave. This is because the complainant has already appealed to a government minister. The complaint is also late.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 451)

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

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to advise him about work required to address a leak and damp at his listed property. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his listed building consent application as it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Spelthorne Borough Council (20 004 284)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 09-Oct-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge the complainant for a Community Infrastructure Levy. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council. The complainant also had a right of appeal if she disagreed with the Council’s calculations.