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:

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (20 014 101)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 03-Aug-2021

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about how it dealt with planning applications by the complainant's neighbour for a house extension and garden room.

  • Wychavon District Council (20 012 879)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 02-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve development on land next to his home. Mr X said the use of the land will affect his health. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 008 820)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 27-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council has handled a planning application regarding the second phase of a housing development. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Enfield (20 008 708)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 26-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr B and Mrs B complained the Council delayed investigating their concerns about works to their neighbour's garden, unnecessarily considered a retrospective planning application for these works, and delayed responding to their complaints. Mr and Mrs B said this caused them stress and anxiety, put them to time and trouble, and led to them incurring unnecessary costs. We found fault with the Council for failing to have a published planning enforcement policy and giving incorrect planning advice. The Council agreed to apologise, reimburse the cost of professional reports, and make a financial payment to acknowledge the impact of its faults.

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 012 283)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 26-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve his neighbour's planning applications. There was no fault in the Council's decision making process.

  • London Borough of Ealing (20 012 190)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 23-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of a planning application for a development close to his home. There was fault by the Council because it did not take proper account of the development's impact on Mr X's home before it determined the application. The Council agreed to a financial remedy that reflects the impact on Mr X.

  • Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (20 012 528)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 23-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to approve a planning application on her neighbour's land. There was no fault in the Council's decision making process.

  • Stafford Borough Council (20 009 371)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 23-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr C and Mrs D complain about the Council's response to their reports about a neighbouring farmer removing a nearby hedgerow, drainage works and creating a slurry lagoon. Mr C and Mrs D say they suffered flooding to their land, the area has lost an important stretch of hedgerow and they have spent unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the matter. We have found delay and poor communication by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, payment and other action to provide a suitable remedy.

  • Manchester City Council (20 007 948)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 22-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of a group of residents about the way the Council decided a planning application. He says if the application for planning permission had been handled properly, it would not have been granted. He says the granted application will mean some residents are overlooked and there will be significant traffic problems. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

  • Ashford Borough Council (20 006 951)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 20-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider an application for prior approval for an agricultural building near his property. Mr X says the building is in an area of outstanding natural beauty and will impact on his outlook and value of his property. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.