Planning applications

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Ashfield District Council (18 016 383)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 15-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way planning permission was granted for a new build that backs onto her property. She says the Council failed to consider the impact on her property, did not notify her, and failed to visit her property. She says this has meant her property is overlooked and there is a loss of privacy. The Ombudsman does not uphold Mrs X's complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault.

  • Mid Sussex District Council (19 001 205)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 15-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains about the Council's consideration of an outline planning application. The Ombudsman has ended his involvement as we cannot at this stage assess the extent of Mr C's injustice.

  • Wakefield City Council (18 019 823)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 11-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to notify him about a planning application and did not consider his amenity before granting permission. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council followed regulatory and policy process.

  • London Borough of Haringey (18 016 450)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 11-Jul-2019

    Summary: There was fault in the wording of the planning application validation checklist. Reviewing the validation checklist to ensure that it is clear which documents are compulsory with a planning application and which are discretionary remedies the fault. The fault did not cause injustice as the planning officer had enough information to decide the planning application without a conservation area assessment. .

  • Eastleigh Borough Council (17 008 158)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 09-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Council was not significantly at fault in relation to the substantive matters Mr W raised. But, there was fault causing injustice to Mr W through the Council's lack of response to his request to escalate a complaint to Level Two of the Council's complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to make a written apology to Mr W, and to provide a small financial remedy.

  • London Legacy Development Corporation Ltd (18 006 510)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 05-Jul-2019

    Summary: The complaint is about the planning permission the Development Corporation gave to a development to Mrs F's neighbouring block. The Ombudsman's view is there was no fault, so we have no powers to question the merits of the decision.

  • Medway Council (18 015 057)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 05-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to properly investigate an alleged planning breach. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Council and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

  • Wiltshire Council (18 016 592)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 04-Jul-2019

    Summary: Ms B complains about how the Council considered the environmental impact of a proposed housing development when it dealt with the application for planning permission. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council's action in this matter. However, there was a delay in responding to Ms B's complaint about it.

  • South Lakeland District Council (18 013 089)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 04-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Council acted without fault in reaching its decision on a small industrial unit planning application, and in the subsequent environmental investigations into concerns about the site's operations.

  • London Borough of Bexley (18 003 937)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 02-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council's consideration of a planning application for an extension to the house next to her. She did not receive any notification of the planning application and considers the Council may have been biased in favour of the applicant as a previous planning application had been refused. She considers the development will have an adverse impact on her in particular from overlooking from a bay window at first floor. There was no fault in the Council's consideration of the planning application.