Planning advice


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (19 014 078)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 24-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council's pre-application planning advice which she says led to unnecessary time and expense in pursuing an application which was unlikely to be successful. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (19 012 262)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 10-Aug-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council's pre-application planning advice was incorrect and the Council had not followed procedure. We have found fault causing delays to Mr X's project. The Council has acknowledged some service failures and has agreed to refund Mr X his planning fees. We consider this to be a satisfactory outcome.

  • North Lincolnshire Council (20 001 615)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 07-Aug-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to respond to her pre-application planning enquiry. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the complaint.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 689)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 31-Jul-2020

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to allocate him a serviced plot of land under self-build legislation. He also says the Council wrongly refused his planning application. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation. That is because there is no injustice in respect of the self-build issue and Mr D has exercised his right of appeal in respect of the planning decision.

  • Crawley Borough Council (19 018 996)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 24-Jul-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's handling of planning matters for a change of use of a building. The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation because parts of the complaint were late; concerned legal issues, which were for the courts to determine; and Mr X could reasonably have used his legal appeal rights.

  • 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.

Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.