Rushcliffe Borough Council (19 016 141)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 13-Jul-2020

Summary: Mr X complains the Council considered incorrect distances when determining a planning application at a neighbouring property. Mr X's complaint about this is late and so falls outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. There is no fault in how the Council considered an application for a non-material amendment.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 709)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 13-Jul-2020

Summary: Mr D says the Council did not properly consider objections to a planning application. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Eden District Council (19 009 593)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 08-Jul-2020

Summary: Mrs F complains of multiple faults in the Council's consideration of a planning application for an agricultural building in a field next to her home. We find fault in how the Council summarised certain matters in a planning report and for omitting certain conditions to its planning permission which it said it would do. However, we do not find these faults caused Mrs F an injustice and so we have completed our investigation.

Oxford City Council (19 015 782)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 07-Jul-2020

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to approve a planning application which included an access road which crossed a cycle path. Mr X says he feels unsafe when crossing the road on his bicycle because priority was given to vehicles. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Oxfordshire County Council (19 018 663)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 07-Jul-2020

Summary: Mr X complained about the County Council's decision to recommend a change to the layout of a junction, where a cycle path crossed a new access road. Mr X says he feels unsafe crossing the junction on his bicycle, because priority is given to vehicles. There is no evidence of fault in the way the County Council made its decision.

Northumberland County Council (18 018 874)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 07-Jul-2020

Summary: the Ombudsman finds that there was fault by the Council in its consideration of a planning application for lawful use of a building. But he did not find this caused injustice to Mr X.

London Borough of Redbridge (19 001 964)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 06-Jul-2020

Summary: Mrs C complains the Council failed to consider properly a planning application for an extension at her neighbour's property. Mrs C says she suffers from an unacceptable development which adversely affects her amenity and outlook. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

Epping Forest District Council (18 019 899)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 01-Jul-2020

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's approval of a dormer window on an extension next to a home he owned (and is now owned by his daughter). We uphold the complaint finding fault in the Council's failure to adequately scrutinise amended plans and not consulting Mr B on those amendments. It also dealt poorly with his complaint. We consider these faults caused him unnecessary frustration, time and trouble and professional costs. The Council has agreed action to remedy this injustice set out at the end of this statement.

Cheshire East Council (19 018 568)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Jun-2020

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to approve an application for houses on land near her home. Mrs X says the new development will cause more on-street parking. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Cheshire East Council (19 014 606)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Jun-2020

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve an application for houses on land near his home. Mr X says the new development will cause overshadowing of his garden and more on-street parking. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.