Planning applications

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Hambleton District Council (18 010 278)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 09-Apr-2019

    Summary: The Complainant says the Council failed to properly exercise its planning controls allowing a material change of use to go unchallenged. He says the Council allowed a second chance to apply for planning permission contrary to planning law and failed to properly exercise its environmental health powers. The Council says it acted in line with its understanding of planning law, government guidance and its enforcement policy. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault.

  • South Staffordshire District Council (18 014 248)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 08-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to properly consider an application to construct a nursery on a site near the homes of himself and a group of local people. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint further, because a new full application is being considered by the Council and most of the people on whose behalf he complains have not suffered sufficient injustice to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will not consider planning applications that are still being considered. If Mr B is still unhappy once the new retrospective application is decided, he can make a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman.

  • North Dorset District Council (18 014 350)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 08-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mrs D complained that the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for a neighbouring property. The Council was at fault, because it failed to notify her of the application and did not consider the impact the development would have on her property. However, the outcome of the planning application would not have been different even if Mrs D had objected. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy to Mrs D for her time and trouble.

  • Cheshire East Council (17 002 394)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 08-Apr-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on the part of the Council with regards to its handling of an outline planning application. However, we consider it unlikely on balance of probabilities that the outcome would have been different even if the Council had acted without fault. The Council has agreed to take action to address the distress and inconvenience caused to the complainant by its fault.

  • Rugby Borough Council (18 011 151)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 04-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to ensure a housing developer built a wall on the boundary of his property. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision on a planning condition.

  • South Northamptonshire District Council (18 006 198)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 04-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to grant planning permission to a neighbour to build a garage that is on a flood zone. He also complained about the Council's failure to take enforcement action about unauthorised development on the same site. The Ombudsman has found some fault in the way the decision was made but it did not cause a significant injustice to Mr X. The Ombudsman has found no fault in respect of the enforcement matter.

  • Eden District Council (18 007 725)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 03-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr C complained about how the Council handled a planning application to build a garage on land neighbouring his grade II listed home. The Council failed to notify him of the planning application contrary to its normal process. It has apologised to Mr C for this and that he lost the opportunity to object to the development. It is not clear from its files that the Council considered the impact on Mr C or the setting of the listed building. However, the Council does not consider the garage will have a harmful impact on Mr C's home. It has agreed to review its processes so it is clear that it has considered the impact on listed buildings when it decides planning applications.

  • Runnymede Borough Council (18 013 241)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X has complained about the Council's decision to grant planning permission for a development near his home. There is some fault with how the Council has dealt with the planning application, but this has caused no injustice.

  • Sedgemoor District Council (18 012 901)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider the Neighbourhood Plan before making a planning decision. We should end our investigation as Mr X was not caused an injustice and it is unlikely that further investigation would result in a finding of fault.

  • Coventry City Council (18 006 468)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council gave an inaccurate description of a development when it sent him a consultation, did not respond to his letters seeking clarification and did not properly assess the impact on his solar panels. The Ombudsman finds there was fault when the Council publicised the planning application with a factually wrong description. However, there is no evidence this caused any significant injustice to Mr X. Further, there was no fault in how the Council handled Mr X's letters of representation or in its conclusion the effect of the development on his solar panels was not a material planning consideration.

;