Birmingham City Council (19 001 144)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2021

Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council reached decisions on two planning applications submitted by Mrs X's neighbours. However, the Council failed to keep Mrs X informed of its investigations into her concerns that the development was not being built to plan. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and pay her a financial remedy to acknowledge the unnecessary time and trouble it caused her.

London Borough of Redbridge (20 002 960)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 26-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council's decision to grant planning permission for an extension to a neighbouring house. We find fault because the Council delayed in registering some consultation responses. Mrs Y's response was processed and considered, but her neighbour's response was not. The planning report also wrongly referred to a nearby development which is subject to enforcement action. However, we find the fault caused no injustice because the Council took account of all relevant and material planning considerations. On balance we find it was unlikely to have reached a different decision in the absence of fault. There is no evidence of fault in the other matters complained about.

Somerset West and Taunton Council (20 005 575)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 26-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve development of land at the side of his home. We found no fault in the decision-making process.

South Downs National Park Authority (20 005 566)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 26-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to approve a planning application for development on land behind her property. We ended our investigation as we are unlikely to be able to decide the outcome would have been any different.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 770)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 25-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr Z complains the Council has failed to deal with a breach of planning control in the housing development behind his home and did not deal with his complaint properly. The Council has already apologised for the delay in its complaint response and has accepted there was fault in its planning report. We find this fault did not cause significant injustice. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with a breach of planning control.

North Devon District Council (19 006 450)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 24-Mar-2021

Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for a house built close to her home resulting in a building it would otherwise have refused. The Council says it considered the application against all relevant planning policies and says the application met the criteria for a local needs' application. We find the Council acted without fault in deciding the application.

Breckland District Council (20 006 121)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 24-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's decision to approve planning permission for a development in the garden of a neighbouring property. There was no fault with the way the Council reached its decision.

Guildford Borough Council (20 004 025)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 22-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council's decision on her planning application was inconsistent and that she should not have been put to the costs of a planning appeal. There was fault in the way the Council reached a view on another planning application, However, this did not cause injustice to Mrs X. There was no fault in the way the Council decided her planning application.

Chelmsford City Council (20 004 747)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 22-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr X complained the Council approved a planning application that is contrary to the Local Plan, failed to consider his objections and failed to respond to breaches of planning control. We find the Council was not at fault.

Plymouth City Council (20 005 942)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 19-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to protect him from his neighbour's development. There was no evidence to show it is likely there was fault in the way planning enforcement decisions were made or the outcome would have been different. However, there was some fault because the Council had no record to show what adjustments were necessary in dealing with Mr X's disability. The Council has agreed to remedy the fault we found.