Planning applications


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (19 008 576)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 07-Jan-2020

    Summary: There is no fault by the Council. It determined a planning application on the information available, including the presence of a shared driveway. The legal dispute between neighbours over parking and boundaries is not a matter for the Council or the Ombudsman.

  • South Hams District Council (19 005 701)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 07-Jan-2020

    Summary: There was a minor administrative fault by the planning officer when completing a planning report form. This error did not affect the result of the planning application and so the error caused no injustice to Ms B. There was no fault in the consultation on the planning application or the officers site visit.

  • Manchester City Council (19 003 149)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 06-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's decision to approve a planning application for a development next to her home. She says this was based on inaccurate information in the case officer's report. While there was fault when plans were not measured correctly by the planning officer, the Ombudsman is satisfied this did not affect the outcome of the planning application and so did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 006 755)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 02-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to approve her neighbour's planning application. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

  • North East Derbyshire District Council (19 001 441)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 02-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council's approval of a planning application for a housing development next to their property. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter.

  • West Suffolk Council (19 008 277)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 02-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council approved a planning application for development on land the applicant did not own. There was some fault in the way the Council made its decision, but this did not make any difference to the outcome of its planning decision. The Council has agreed to take action to avoid recurrence of the fault.

  • Waverley Borough Council (19 006 573)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 02-Jan-2020

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council refusing to refund Mr X's planning application fee when it took too long to consider his planning application. The Council has apologised for delays in responding to Mr X's complaints and offered to pay him £250 to recognise the time and trouble this caused. The Ombudsman cannot continue to investigate the Council's consideration of Mr X's planning application as he has a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

  • West Lindsey District Council (19 007 901)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 02-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to approve their neighbour's planning application, which they say will reduce light and privacy in their home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

  • Devon County Council (19 006 460)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 23-Dec-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve a footpath and cycleway. We have not investigated this complaint further, because Mr X was not caused a significant injustice by the Council's decision and we do not have the power to deliver the outcome Mr X wants.

  • Leicester City Council (19 007 025)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 20-Dec-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to approve a planning application for her neighbour's extension. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.