Planning advice


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Dartmoor National Park Authority (19 009 752)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 21-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Authority failed to provide her with written pre-application advice that she had paid for. Despite early, positive assurances from the planning officer, her planning application was eventually refused. Mrs X claims significant sums of money she says were lost as a result of the Authority's actions. We found fault in the way the Authority made its decision, but we do not recommend a further remedy beyond the Authority's offer to refund the fee for pre-application planning advice.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 119)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 12-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr F complains the Council gave him incorrect pre-application planning advice that he did not need to apply for planning permission for change of use of his property. The Ombudsman has found fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr F, which is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Dorset Council (19 006 027)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 22-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave incorrect pre-application advice. This led to him submitting a planning application that had no chance of being approved. We have found fault with the Council for issuing poor advice. This resulted in Mr X proceeding with an application and paying architect fees. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X the value of the architect fees to remedy his injustice.

  • North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 019 756)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 07-Jan-2020

    Summary: The Council was at fault only in providing inadequate advice when officers first became aware the extension Mr and Mrs J were building breached planning controls. But there was no significant injustice. It was unclear that firmer advice would have resulted in proposals that the Council could have approved sooner, and without Mr and Mrs J incurring costs for professional advice.

  • 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.