Archive has 714 results
-
Cambridge City Council (20 009 165)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 28-Jan-2021
Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council refused to deal with her complaint about a developer’s infringement onto a right of way and failed to accept the developer submitted the planning application without the correct certificate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
-
North Kesteven District Council (20 008 417)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 27-Jan-2021
Summary: We do not have sufficient reason to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to include a planning condition restricting business use when granting planning permission for horse riding facilities. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. In addition there is no sign that fault by the Council has caused him a significant injustice so far.
-
Redditch Borough Council (20 009 605)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 26-Jan-2021
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council will not take action to deal with a bank of soil next to a pavement. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing such significant personal injustice to warrant investigation.
-
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 26-Jan-2021
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decisions to allow a developer to commence development and grant a temporary traffic regulation order before the Secretary of State decides an order to stop up or divert footpaths. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to allow a developer to commence development and in granting a temporary traffic regulation order.
-
London Borough of Hillingdon (20 004 847)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 26-Jan-2021
Summary: Mr X complained the Council approved a planning application which showed the incorrect position of his property in relation to the development site and failed to notify him of this inaccuracy. The Council properly considered the proposal and it was not misled. It visited the site and correctly reported the position of the proposal in respect of Mr X’s property and the impact on his amenity. There is no fault in how the Council considered this planning application.
-
Cambridge City Council (20 004 361)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 25-Jan-2021
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council responded to a neighbour’s pre-application planning advice request and decided to approve the neighbour’s planning application. The Council was at fault but this did not cause Mr X significant personal injustice.
-
Epping Forest District Council (20 009 022)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 25-Jan-2021
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of his planning application and allegations of undeclared pecuniary interests by local councillors involved with the planning procedure. We should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for him to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which is the proper authority to consider planning appeals. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about pecuniary interest of councillors because these are criminal matters which the Police is responsible for.
-
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 821)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 25-Jan-2021
Summary: Mr Z says the Council was at fault for a failure to inform him about a planning application made by his neighbour. He says this caused him injustice because the Council granted planning permission for a development which reduced the value of his property. The Council was at fault for its failure to inform Mr Z of the application. This caused Mr Z injustice as he did not have the chance to comment before permission was granted. The Council will apologise to Mr Z for this. However, there is evidence that this made no difference to the determination of the planning application because the Council considered Mr Z’s amenity.
-
South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 376)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 22-Jan-2021
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve housing development on land behind his home. We did not investigate this complaint further as we were unlikely to find fault and there was no evidence to show Mr X was caused a significant personal injustice.
-
Ashford Borough Council (20 002 542)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 22-Jan-2021
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a holiday home on land next to his home. We ended our investigation because we were unlikely to find fault in the decision-making process or evidence to show Mr X was caused a significant injustice.