Planning applications archive 2020-2021


Archive has 714 results

  • East Suffolk Council (20 009 365)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 03-Feb-2021

    Summary: We do not propose investigating Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not deal properly with his planning application. The reasons are in the analysis section below.

  • Broxtowe Borough Council (20 009 548)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 03-Feb-2021

    Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with and decided his planning application. Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. This takes Council involvement in the planning process outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

  • Plymouth City Council (20 009 849)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 03-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has considered a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because the planning application has not yet been determined and so any injustice is speculative.

  • East Devon District Council (20 009 542)

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

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of and decision on his planning application. Mr X has rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s refusal decision. That appeal provides the remedy Mr X wants, for his application to be reconsidered.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 009 363)

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

    Summary: We will not investigate Dr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a single storey outbuilding within a conservation area. The Council considered the relevant legislation and the objections received before approving the application. Without evidence of fault in the decision-making process, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 771)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly decide a planning application submitted by her neighbour. There was fault by the Council. It failed to follow basic planning procedures. We found the outcome was unlikely to have been different, but the Council should recognise the time and trouble Mrs X was put to in raising the matter.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 007 586)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 29-Jan-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

  • London Borough of Ealing (19 013 644)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 28-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for the house next door. We will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen any fault in the way the Council publicised and considered the application. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

  • Staffordshire County Council (20 003 941)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 28-Jan-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered traffic calming measures proposed for the road where the complainant lives. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

  • Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (20 008 833)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 28-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s approval of a planning application in 2018 which he says affects the amenity of his property. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the subject of the complaint has been considered by the High Court and the Court of Appeal and is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. It also refers to matters outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints.

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.

Privacy settings