Planning applications


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Chiltern District Council (17 002 975)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 20-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Council did not clearly explain its professional judgement decision to grant permission for Mr X's neighbour Mr Y's two storey extension. But this did not amount to fault. It was for officers to determine whether to recommend the application for refusal. The application was also considered by the Council's Planning Committee, and Members voted to grant permission. There was no fault in the committee's decision making process.

  • Cornwall Council (17 008 584)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 17-Nov-2017

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's decision to approve a housing development on land near her home. The decision was made without fault, but the plans were not named and presented clearly on the Council's website.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (17 004 516)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 17-Nov-2017

    Summary: I have ended my investigation into Mr B's complaint about the Council's handling of a planning application for a housing development next to his home. This is because the Council's decision to approve the application was not affected by fault.

  • Wokingham Borough Council (17 001 013)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 17-Nov-2017

    Summary: There is no evidence that the Council failed to properly consider a minor material amendment application for a planning application. It was properly considered by a planning committee and therefore the Ombudsman will not challenge the professional judgement of this decision.

  • London Borough of Bexley (16 018 681)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 16-Nov-2017

    Summary: The complaint is about the Council's view of where ground levels lay in applications for prior approval for permitted development. The complainant says an officer refused to change her decision when he showed her it was wrong. I see no evidence of fault that has led to a significant injustice.

  • West Oxfordshire District Council (17 012 050)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 16-Nov-2017

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about a neighbour's planning application to convert a garage to a bedroom and extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault.

  • Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (17 001 053)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 16-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman upholds this complaint as there was fault in the way the Council dealt with reports about a bin store. I consider the Council's previously offered apology with some additional agreed service improvements is enough to remedy the complaint.

  • Fenland District Council (16 018 326)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 15-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault because in their report to the Planning Committee, officers omitted to fully assess the impact of reserved matters proposals on Mr X's amenity. But, committee members were aware of this issue in making their decision. So, Mr X did not suffer significant injustice through this fault in the decision- making process.

  • London Borough of Sutton (16 018 028)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 15-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about housing development near the complainant's home. It is too late to complain about the Council's decision to grant planning permission in 2014 and, in any case, it is unlikely he would find evidence of fault affecting that decision. The Ombudsman should not investigate a complaint about planning conditions relating to glazing as it is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant significant injustice.

  • Shropshire Council (16 016 196)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 15-Nov-2017

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council decide a planning application under delegated authority which meant he could not object in person. He says had he been able to state his case to the planning committee the outcome may have been different. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council's actions.

;