Planning applications

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Melton Borough Council (18 014 681)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 17-May-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's failure to properly publicise a planning application for development on land next to her home. She says that her amenity was harmed because of this. There was fault in the way the Council made its decision, but it made no difference to the outcome of its planning decision.

  • Mid Sussex District Council (18 013 936)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 16-May-2019

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

  • Waverley Borough Council (18 012 943)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 16-May-2019

    Summary: Miss B and Mr C complain that, when granting planning permission for their neighbours to build a rear extension, extend the garage on their common boundary and install a window facing their home, the Council failed to take proper account of the impact on their amenity. The Ombudsman has closed the investigation into their complaint because we have found no fault in the way the Council considered the application.

  • Northumberland Council (18 011 628)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 16-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault in its handling of a planning application for a site near his home. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council however he does not consider this has caused Mr X a personal injustice. For this reason he has ended his investigation of this complaint.

  • Eastleigh Borough Council (18 013 223)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 15-May-2019

    Summary: The Council was at fault in not publicising the full proposals for development near Mr X's home. This fault did not affect the Council's decision to grant the development planning permission.

  • Shropshire Council (18 016 078)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 14-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs C complains the Council wrongly demanded a Community Infrastructure Levy payment for her self-build development and applied a surcharge. Mrs C says because of the Council's fault she faces a large and unexpected payment plus legal costs which she has no means to pay. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the surcharge part of the complaint as Mrs C has used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and will not further investigate the Community Infrastructure Levy payment as we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

  • London Borough of Merton (17 009 230)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 14-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour's development. The Council is at fault as councillors wrongly visited Mrs X's neighbour when carrying out their own site visit and there is doubt as to whether a planning officer and planning committee had sufficient information to understand the relationship between Mrs X's property and the development site. There is also fault in how the Council investigated Mrs X's complaint against two councillors. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X as recommended.

  • Hart District Council (18 009 615)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 14-May-2019

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault by Hart District Council in relation to Ms F's complaints about its handling of matters related to her applications for planning and listed buildings consent. Ms F can appeal to the Planning Inspector about the decisions on her applications and so I will not pursue a complaint about these decisions.

  • Shropshire Council (18 011 304)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 13-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs C complained about the way the Council dealt with three planning applications for development near her property. We cannot find fault with the actions the Council took.

  • Watford Borough Council (18 013 129)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 13-May-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mrs Z's neighbour's retrospective planning application or the approach it took when dealing with the planning breaches she reported. The Council took longer than it should to respond to Mrs Z's complaints. The Ombudsman recommends the Council apologises to Mrs Z for the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay.