Statement Not upheld Other 06-Sep-2021
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve a planning application for development on land on the edge of his village. We did not investigate his complaints further because Mr X was not caused a significant injustice or an injustice for which we would recommend a remedy.
Statement Upheld Other 03-Sep-2021
Summary: Mr X complained the Council had failed to decide a prior approval application within planning regulation time limits, so lost the chance to control the siting and appearance of a telecommunications mast. There was fault because the Council did not act within the regulation time limit, and this caused Mr X uncertainty and disappointment. The Council has remedied this by making satisfactory improvements to its planning service.
Statement Upheld Other 01-Sep-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an error in a planning report. This is because we are satisfied with the Council's issuing of a correction statement. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs D is seeking.
Statement Not upheld Other 31-Aug-2021
Summary: Mr X, as Chairperson of a residents' action group, complained the Council failed to follow the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure flood risk is not increased. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. It properly considered the issues in the terms of an outline application and met the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework by adding conditions to ensure the risk of flooding does not increase when the reserved matters application is considered.
Statement Not upheld Other 20-Aug-2021
Summary: Mr C complained about the Council's consideration of a prior approval application to demolish a vacant public house and planning application to redevelop the site of the former public house. We have ended our involvement as we cannot achieve the outcome sought.
Statement Not upheld Other 13-Aug-2021
Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it considered the potential adverse impact from noise and light when it granted planning permission for a sports pitch near Mr B's home.
Statement Not upheld Other 12-Aug-2021
Summary: We found no fault in how the Council dealt with design quality in deciding to approve details for a development near Mr X's home.
Statement Upheld Other 26-Jul-2021
Summary: Mr X said the Council wrongly discharged a planning condition that was meant to protect his home from unacceptable noise from nearby development. We found the Council's decision making lacked clarity about the noise reduction measures achieved by the development. This lack of clarity did not affect the Council's decision to discharge the planning condition. However, it caused Mr X avoidable frustration, for which the Council agreed to apologise.
Statement Upheld Other 09-Jul-2021
Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr F's main complaint of the Council failing to take enforcement action for breaches of planning consent by a nearby business. Nor was it fault to not insist on a new planning application. The Council was entitled to consider revisions under a variation clause. It failed to consider his complaint within the timescale set out by its complaints procedure. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.
Statement Upheld Other 05-Jul-2021
Summary: Ms X complains about her dealings with the Council over an outbuilding built by her neighbour initially without planning permission. There was unreasonable delay by the Council in dealing with the planning enforcement complaint. The Council should now apologise to Ms X for the delay.