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 2020-2021


Archive has 714 results

  • Mole Valley District Council (20 011 813)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's handling of a neighbour's planning application. We do not intend to investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks.

  • Cornwall Council (20 002 212)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of Mr Z about the Council's handling of two planning applications and a planning enforcement investigation. We will not investigate concerns about the first planning application because the complaint about it is too late. In our view, there is no evidence of procedural fault in the other matters complained about, or they caused little or no injustice to Mr Z, so we have not investigated them further. The Council's apology for the fault identified in its handling of Mr Y's complaint is sufficient and we do not propose anything further.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (20 006 265)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled a planning application for a glazed door as it approved the plan before the end of the consultation period. This did not cause any significant injustice to Mr X, so no remedy is necessary.

  • London Borough of Hackney (20 001 757)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Ms E complained the Council excluded her from the planning process by not informing her about a planning application for a development near where she lives. She also complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint. We find there was no fault in the Council not informing Ms E about the planning application. However, the Council was at fault as the case officer's report did not sufficiently consider the impact of the planning application on Ms E's amenity. This did not cause her a significant injustice. There was further fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms E's complaint. It apologised to her and confirmed it had reminded relevant members of staff about the correct complaints procedure to follow. This is a suitable remedy.

  • Cornwall Council (20 002 215)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of Mr X about the Council's handling of two planning applications and a planning enforcement investigation. We will not investigate concerns about the first planning application because Mr X has previously complained to the Ombudsman about this, and we decided not to investigate as the complaint was late. There is no procedural fault in the other matters complained about, or they caused little or no injustice to Mr X, so we have not investigated them further. The Council's apology for the fault identified in its handling of Mr Y's complaint is sufficient and we do not recommend anything further.

  • Cornwall Council (20 000 812)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of Ms Q about the Council's handling of two planning applications and a planning enforcement investigation. We will not investigate concerns about the first planning application because the complaint about it is too late. In our view, there is no evidence of procedural fault in the other matters complained about, or they caused little or no injustice to Ms Q, so we have not investigated them further. The Council's apology for the fault identified in its handling of Mr Y's complaint is sufficient and we do not propose anything further.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 011 452)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council's actions prior to its decisions not to pursue enforcement action against the complainant's neighbour. The Council investigated the complaint and confirmed not all matters in the enforcement notice were completed. However, it told the complainant it would not take further action as the main issue in the Enforcement Notice had been complied with. And the decking is not raised, and the harm caused (if any) is insignificant.

  • Torbay Council (20 005 435)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve the change of use of a building next to his home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

  • Cornwall Council (20 012 418)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of a planning obligation it agreed prior to a decision on a planning appeal made to the Planning Inspector. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council which caused him injustice.

  • Ashfield District Council (20 001 406)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it considered taking enforcement action against Mr X's neighbours for removing a hedgerow to erect a fence.