Planning applications


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (17 020 335)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 16-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council publicised and approved a planning application for development near to his home. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (17 009 128)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 16-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Council was at fault in basing its consideration of a planning application to rebuild an existing school on outdated GIS data. It further failed to respond to Mr X's appeal at the final stage of its complaints procedure. Consequently, it denied Mr X an opportunity to object to the proposals. It further put him to needless time and trouble in pursuing his complaints about this. To remedy matters, I consider the Council should pay Mr X the sum of £250.

  • London Borough of Hackney (17 000 073)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 16-Jan-2019

    Summary: Ms B complains about the Council's handling of a planning application for development of land near her property. She says it failed to notify residents of important dates, adjusted planning policies in favour of the developer and failed to represent the interests of local residents. She also says the case officer misled the planning committee. The Ombudsman finds no fault on the Council's part.

  • Daventry District Council (18 005 905)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 15-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled a planning application for development which he says will affect his amenity. I have found no fault in the way the Council handled the application.

  • Daventry District Council (18 007 165)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 14-Jan-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not handle a planning application correctly. She says this will have a negative impact on her neighbouring property. There is no fault in the Council's actions and we do not uphold Ms X's complaint.

  • Rushcliffe Borough Council (18 004 559)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 11-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Council properly considered the applications for development next to the complainant's home and the impact of these on his amenity. It also responded properly to his concerns about breaches of planning control on the development.

  • London Borough of Havering (18 009 459)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 10-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve his neighbour's extension, which he fears may affect his private access rights. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision, and private rights over land are not material planning considerations.

  • Poole Borough Council (18 007 080)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 09-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr Q complains about the Council's decision to grant planning permission for a development close to his house. Mr Q says this has caused him an injustice because the development has increased the risk of flooding and caused damaged to his property. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not including a certain objection in its planning report. However, we consider the fault did not cause Mr Q any significant injustice. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the way the Council made its decision.

  • Watford Borough Council (18 001 571)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 09-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Council properly considered a planning application for a new house and followed proper processes in deciding to approve the application. The Council also properly set out its considerations of the need to remove a TPO tree.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 006 350)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 09-Jan-2019

    Summary: Ms B complains the Council has not taken enforcement action against her neighbour's loft extension. Ms B says her neighbour's extension has stopped her from using her gardens, reduced the value of her property and had a harmful impact on her mental health. The Ombudsman has not found fault with how the Council decided the extension was permitted development. The Council delayed in responding to Ms B's complaint and has apologised, this is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

;