Planning advice

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Bromsgrove District Council (19 002 962)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 11-Dec-2019

    Summary: There is no fault in action taken by the Council when it told Mr X to remove two structures from in front of his property. If Mr X disagreed with the Council's view he could have applied for a Certificate of lawful development or awaited for it to take enforcement action and appeal to the Planning Inspector.

  • Wiltshire Council (19 002 917)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 11-Nov-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr M's complaint that it failed to take account of the information he previously sent about starting construction works on site when he applied for pre-application advice. The officer missed this evidence. The Council missed the opportunity to acknowledge this failure sooner than it did. This is fault. It delayed responding to a letter from him for 10 weeks. None of the faults caused Mr M a significant injustice.

  • South Downs National Park Authority (19 004 263)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 31-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Authority provided the wrong advice on a planning matter causing him to suffer financial loss. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Authority gave advice.

  • Gedling Borough Council (19 000 333)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 20-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application and the advice it provided. There was no fault in the way the Council provided pre-application planning advice.

  • Northumberland County Council (19 001 366)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 07-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council gave positive pre application advice on the principle of planning and then changed its position in response to Mr Y's planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint at this stage as we could not identify what, if any, injustice the Council's actions have caused Mr Y until the outcome of the appeal to the Planning Inspector is known.

  • Uttlesford District Council (18 012 476)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 19-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to provide the complainant with a timely and clear confirmation he had complied with a planning condition on his planning permission. This caused him unnecessary stress and anxiety and time and trouble in pursuing these matters for 10 months. The Council has agreed an increased financial remedy to remedy this injustice.

  • London Borough of Enfield (18 016 014)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 30-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained of delay by the Council in providing pre-application advice on a planning proposal. There was unreasonable delay by the Council in dealing with Mrs X's application. The Council has since provided the advice. It also agreed to a financial remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X.

  • Stratford-on-Avon District Council (18 009 847)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 28-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Council gave suitable advice about permitted development rights to the complainant, through direct communications and its planning guidance documents. It also handled the relevant planning applications without fault.

  • South Somerset District Council (18 011 336)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 25-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr F complains the Council wrongly advised him about a planning application fee. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

  • Milton Keynes Council (17 019 389)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 15-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council's decision to allow a change of use at a site close to his home. Mr Y says the Council has lacked impartiality in its dealings with the developer, and has failed to seek the views of neighbours and other third-parties. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of procedural fault in the Council's handling of the prior approval applications received for the site, and we do not uphold the complaint.