Planning applications

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 009 008)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to properly consider an application for an extension near his home which affects his home and the character of the area. The Council says it considered all relevant policies and its case officer wrote a short report on the proposed minor development. The Ombudsman finds the Council decided the application having before it all relevant information including the complainant's objections and therefore acted without fault.

  • Northumberland County Council (19 009 313)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was no fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for development near Mr X's home.

  • Wiltshire Council (19 010 798)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to vary a planning condition that controls the use of the building next to his home. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

  • Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (19 013 507)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about its decision to grant planning permission for a development close to the complainant's relative's home in 2019.

  • Norfolk County Council (18 013 059)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr B has complained about the Council's running of an agricultural site next to his home. The Ombudsman has no found fault on the part of the Council, aside from its delay in responding to his complaint, for which it has already apologised.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (19 001 759)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council handled his neighbour's planning applications and its failure to take enforcement action. The Ombudsman finds no fault on the Council's part.

  • Melton Borough Council (19 011 941)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint which alleged fault with the Council's decision to grant planning permission for a development as well as its handling of planning enforcement matters.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (19 009 025)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 27-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was no fault in how the Council reached its decisions to grant planning permission for development near Mr X's home.

  • Chelmsford City Council (19 011 087)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 26-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council considered the impact of a dormer extension on Mrs X's property. There is also no fault in the Council deciding the addition of a flue to a single storey extension is covered under permitted development rules.

  • Maidstone Borough Council (19 015 413)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 26-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application that affected her privacy. There was fault in the way the Council made its decision, but by the time we investigated the complaint, the Council had already found a satisfactory remedy for the impact on Mrs X. The Council has approved amended plans which should ensure a window facing Mrs X is obscured and fixed shut below a certain height.