Planning applications

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Merton (19 012 178)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 25-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not take enforcement action against a developer who failed to fully implement the development where he lives. We have discontinued our investigation as there is no significant personal injustice to Mr X.

  • Huntingdonshire District Council (19 018 072)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 24-Nov-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to consider the impact on her property's amenity caused by raised ground levels at a new development near her home. Ms X also complains the Council failed to take account of the advice of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) regarding a permeable rainwater storage tank near her property. The Council's failure to record the reasons for its decision to discharge a planning condition amounts to fault. However, this fault has not caused Ms X an injustice.

  • Wolverhampton City Council (19 015 429)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 23-Nov-2020

    Summary: Miss B and Mr C complain the Council did not consider properly the height of development near to their home. The plans they were shown, and that were published on the Council's website when the planning application was approved, showed the part of the development near to their home lower than their land. The Council approved detailed levels drawings, without consulting them, and which show the development to be around 1.5m higher than they had expected. They say the development as built has an adverse impact on their enjoyment of their home. There was no fault by the Council in the consideration of the planning application.

  • South Northamptonshire District Council (20 001 001)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 18-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to decide a prior approval planning application to erect a telecom mast in his village within the statutory timescales. This meant the developer was able to erect the mast without planning control. The Council was at fault, but it has already apologised to Mr X, which is an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

  • Leeds City Council (19 015 915)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 17-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mrs X, represented by her local Councillor, complained about the Council's decision not to refer her neighbour's planning application to its plans panel. The Ombudsman found there was fault in the decision-making process. However, there was no injustice to Mrs X because the Ombudsman cannot say that, but for the fault, the outcome would have been different.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 019 223)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 16-Nov-2020

    Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not properly consider the impact of her neighbour's planning application in terms of loss of light and outlook to her property. Specifically, she says the Council was wrong to classify her dining room as a non-habitable room on the basis her tenants were using it for storage when the Council's planning officer visited. She says the planning permission will result in loss of light and outlook to her property and will reduce its value. There was no fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Ealing (19 019 113)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 13-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve a development opposite his business premises, which he says will cause an impact on his security and amenity. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

  • South Oxfordshire District Council (20 002 632)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 11-Nov-2020

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged it approved a non-material amendment planning application without considering the development's impact on the complainant's amenity.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (19 012 497)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 09-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council managed changes to a planning application for a neighbouring property. He says the Council has allowed his neighbour to build an extension with three windows on the side elevation, an extended balcony and overhanging drainage. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council's procedures on consultation and in its design guidance. Also, in not updating Mr B about its enforcement investigation.

  • Dartford Borough Council (19 019 382)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 06-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to protect mature trees on land behind his home. Mr X says the removal of the trees has affected his amenity. There was some fault in the way the Council made its planning decision, which it agreed to remedy.

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.