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.

Planning applications


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Dorset Council (20 010 727)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 03-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to approve a planning application for a bungalow near her home, which she says affects her amenity. There was no fault in the Council's decision making process.

  • New Forest District Council (20 013 507)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 03-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve a planning application to vary a planning condition relating to land drainage. There was no fault in the Council's decision making process.

  • South Holland District Council (20 003 848)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 01-Sep-2021

    Summary: the complainants Mr X and Y & Co complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application to develop land near their property. They believed this would cause a loss of privacy, security and adversely impact on Y & Co's business. The Council said it had properly considered the application at two committee meetings with the complainants speaking at those meetings. We found the Council acted without fault.

  • South Holland District Council (20 008 197)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 01-Sep-2021

    Summary: the complainants Mr X and Y & Co complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application to develop land near their property. They believed this would cause a loss of privacy, security and adversely impact on Y & Co's business. The Council said it had properly considered the application at two committee meetings with the complainants speaking at those meetings. We found the Council acted without fault.

  • East Suffolk Council (21 001 197)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr Z complained about a planning matter. He says the Council has included an area of land in an adopted local development plan which is incompatible with national planning policy. Mr Z wants the Council to remove the site from the plan. However, we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. For that reason, we cannot tell the Council to remove the site from the plan as we have no power to question the merits of a properly made decision. Further, we do not consider Mr Z has suffered serious loss, harm or distress by reason of any fault by the Council. For these reasons, we are discontinuing our investigation.

  • Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (21 000 103)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 27-Aug-2021

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged it did not act in the public interest or behave as a competent local planning authority when it acted as a statutory consultee to a masterplan for a certain development.

  • Winchester City Council (21 000 253)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 27-Aug-2021

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleges it consistently failed to adhere to a planning policy agreed in 2007 when it considered various planning applications for developments in the local area.

  • Rother District Council (20 009 947)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 27-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her neighbour's planning application and how it reached its decision to grant permission. Mrs X said this led to loss of sunlight to her property and caused her distress. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with and made its decision to grant the planning permission.

  • Lake District National Park Authority (20 011 933)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 26-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Authority failed to ensure compliance with planning conditions on a neighbouring development site. He says his land is at risk of flooding if there is an extreme weather event. There is no evidence of fault in how the Authority determined the planning applications and any breaches of conditions on the first planning application have mostly been resolved by the approval of a second planning application. There is fault by the Authority in that it has delayed determining a planning application submitted in August 2019 but this has not resulted in a significant injustice to Mr X.

  • Dartmoor National Park Authority (20 014 279)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 26-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs D wants the Authority to attach a notice to a planning condition relating to a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation. He cannot achieve the main outcome sought by Mrs D and there is no injustice at present to warrant further investigation.