Planning advice


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Chichester District Council (16 018 849)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 03-Nov-2017

    Summary: Ms B considers that the Council wrongly advised her that she would have no problem getting planning permission to use an industrial unit for roast coffee. When she did not get the planning permission, she incurred financial losses and reputational damage, and experienced considerable stress. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council advised Ms B. The delay reaching a decision on the planning application and the decision to refuse planning permission are outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (17 002 111)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 23-Oct-2017

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council dealt with a pre-planning advice application. The Council has agreed to refund Mr X's fee and offered another, free, pre-application meeting. This is enough redress for that fault. The Ombudsman recommended financial redress for the injustice the Council caused Mr X by raising expectation it would complete his complaint and provide a written response on his development proposal.

  • Ashfield District Council (16 019 129)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 15-Sep-2017

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the advice she was given about her development proposal plans. There was no evidence to show Mrs X was misled. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

  • West Dorset District Council (16 016 805)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 07-Sep-2017

    Summary: the Council delayed responding to a request for pre-application advice but did not discriminate against Mr and Mrs B. The Council dealt with Mr and Mrs B's complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure. An apology for the delay processing the request for advice and for not keeping Mr and Mrs B up to date is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Bristol City Council (16 011 521)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 01-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Council incorrectly advised Mrs B she needed planning permission for a change of use of her property when this was not the case. She incurred unnecessary costs and lost rental income as a result. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs B.

  • Wyre Borough Council (17 006 311)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 29-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman does not intend to start an investigation into Mrs X's complaint as without recorded evidence of what advice was provided it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

  • Isle of Wight Council (17 001 155)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 21-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council provided incorrect information in an email which directly led Miss X to seek and pay for legal advice. To remedy this fault the Council should reimburse Miss X's legal costs.

  • Kingston upon Hull City Council (17 005 962)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 15-Aug-2017

    Summary: the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a planning application. Miss X has a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector about its refusal of her application.

  • North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (17 004 578)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 10-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council gave him incorrect planning advice about replacement windows during a telephone conversation. This is because an investigation is unlikely to enable us to establish that the Council acted with fault during the conversation.

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (17 003 324)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 07-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's pre-application planning advice. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault by the Council and it was the Council's decision to refuse Mr X's application, rather than its advice, which caused his claimed injustice. Had Mr X disagreed with this decision it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

;