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:

  • City of Wolverhampton Council (21 015 196)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 10-Apr-2022

    Summary: The complainants said the Council failed to address properly their objections to the planning application filed by their neighbours. They considered the Council's approval of the planning application would result in the property's overdevelopment and loss of amenity for the complainants' property. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application and how it dealt with the complaint.

  • Epping Forest District Council (21 013 063)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 06-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr Y's complaint about the Council failing to notify him of a neighbour's planning application. When alerted, it sent him a notification letter before it decided the application. It was fault not to consider his representations. It was also fault not to give reasons for the recommendation in the planning officer's report. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 000 188)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 06-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr B complains that there was fault in the way the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour to extend the neighbouring property. The Council did not keep adequate records of the representations received from Mr B, and there was delay in responded to his complaint. However, the Ombudsman has not found that this affected the Council's consideration of the application, so we cannot question the merits of the Council's decision to grant planning permission.

  • Ashfield District Council (21 002 938)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 05-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mrs B complained the Council wrongly granted planning permission for a development at the back of her property and failed to take enforcement action. We did not fault with the Council.

  • Sheffield City Council (21 002 700)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 04-Apr-2022

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission to Mr B's neighbour for a first-floor balcony.

  • Buckinghamshire Council (21 010 493)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 03-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action when a neighbour removed a hedge and trees in a conservation area affecting his privacy. There is no fault in failing to consider a Tree Preservation Order as the Council was not aware the trees had been removed. However, the Council delayed in starting an enforcement investigation and it should apologise for this.

  • London Borough of Southwark (21 009 521)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for an extension to a flat below the complainant's home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to suggest fault has affected the planning application outcome, the Council has offered a satisfactory remedy for its delays in responding to the complaint correspondence, and we cannot consider any parts of the complaint about the Council's actions as freeholder of the building.

  • Somerset West and Taunton Council (21 002 823)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for floodlighting to a tennis court and will suffer from excessive levels of light intrusion and glare. We have found fault by the Council in its decision making process but consider the agreed action of an apology, £250 and an assessment of the impact of the floodlighting with any necessary mitigation is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

  • Somerset West and Taunton Council (21 010 626)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for floodlighting to a tennis court and will suffer from excessive levels of light intrusion and glare. We have found fault by the Council in its decision making process but consider the agreed action of an apology, £250 and an assessment of the impact of the floodlighting with any necessary mitigation is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

  • Uttlesford District Council (21 011 176)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council decided a planning application for development near his property. In particular he said the Council failed to properly consider the impact of the development on his amenity and failed to follow the Council's planning guidance. We found the Council misrepresented Mr B's property in the officer's report which caused Mr B frustration and uncertainty. But we did not consider the fault affected the outcome of the planning application. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and pay him £150.