Archive has 714 results
-
South Gloucestershire Council (19 009 957)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 02-Mar-2021
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application, failed to follow the right process, failed to word a planning condition properly and showed bias when approving the planning application. There is no fault in how the Council considered the planning application.
-
Cambridge City Council (20 001 391)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 02-Mar-2021
Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mr X’s planning application. This is because Mr X has a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. Mr X can also contact the Information Commissioner’s Office if he is not satisfied with the Council’s response regarding an alleged data protection breach.
-
South Kesteven District Council (20 005 496)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 02-Mar-2021
Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint alleging fault in its handling of planning applications for the construction of dog kennels at a property.
-
London Borough of Croydon (20 007 947)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 02-Mar-2021
Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged the Council granted planning permission for a development contrary to its local plan policies and without considering the cumulative effect of new developments on flooding in the local area.
-
Cheshire East Council (20 010 951)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 02-Mar-2021
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge a landscaping planning condition on a nearby development. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our investigation.
-
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 01-Mar-2021
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a new house in his neighbour’s garden. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.
-
South Gloucestershire Council (20 005 333)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 01-Mar-2021
Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr B’s complaint against the Council of it failing to tell him, when he applied for planning consent, that works already started by the previous owner meant this was a part retrospective application which in turn meant he was ineligible for Community Infrastructure Levy relief. The fault caused no injustice to Mr B.
-
London Borough of Redbridge (20 011 164)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 01-Mar-2021
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s extension. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
-
Derbyshire Dales District Council (20 011 252)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 01-Mar-2021
Summary: Ms X complains about planning permission granted for a development near her. We will not investigate this complaint because the planning permission was granted by a body out of jurisdiction and the matter is out of time.
-
London Borough of Croydon (19 020 965)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 26-Feb-2021
Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y and Ms W that the Council made a flawed decision when it approved plans for development close to their home. He says the Council did not properly consider the impact on light and wrongly approved the development despite it failing the relevant tests. We find the Council made a decision which was not impacted by fault. The errors in a daylight study had no bearing on the decision made, and the other issues raised by Mr X are matters of professional judgement which, in the absence of procedural fault, the Ombudsman cannot question.