Archive has 1114 results
-
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.
-
Birmingham City Council (20 005 914)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2021
Summary: Ms X complained the Council granted planning permission to complete renovation works to increase the number of HMO tenants at the property neighbouring hers from six to nine. Ms X complained the Council did not adequately consider the concerns she raised about the impact on her privacy and amenity and on the residential character of the road. The Ombudsman does not find the fault by the Council caused an injustice to Ms X.
-
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.
-
Plymouth City Council (20 011 203)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 31-Mar-2021
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s decision to recommend approval of a planning application to make permanent an earlier temporary permission for a commercial garage near her home, and about the planning committee’s decision to grant the permission. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to warrant our investigating.
-
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.
-
Bassetlaw District Council (20 011 581)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 31-Mar-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to the complainant’s property by works to a nearby development. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would achieve the outcome the complainant wants. The complainant can also seek a remedy in court for the claimed injustice.
-
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.
-
East Riding of Yorkshire Council (20 011 912)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 31-Mar-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.
-
London Borough of Newham (20 003 654)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 30-Mar-2021
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint, made on behalf of Mr X, about the Council’s planning notifications and decisions for a nearby residential development, and its decision not to use enforcement powers against the owner. There is not enough evidence of significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the planning and enforcement issues to warrant our investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X and Mrs Y seek from the complaint.
-
Statement Not upheld Other 30-Mar-2021
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision not to approve a request for an Article 4 direction to remove permitted development rights. Mr X complains this is significantly impacting residents and the local area. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council in its decision not to implement an Article 4 direction. This is because the decision was made having considered the information available and current legislation for aircraft noise.