Planning applications archive 2021-2022


Archive has 987 results

  • East Suffolk Council (21 016 927)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 14-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development next to Mr X’s home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision or dealt with the application.

  • Dacorum Borough Council (21 007 722)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 14-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for his neighbour’s extension. We have not found the Council to be at fault. It considered Mr X’s concerns about light and incorrect measurements prior to granting permission. For this reason, we cannot question the merits of the Council's decision.

  • Dorset Council (21 014 209)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 14-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement action taken by the Council against the complainant. Part of the complaint is late and we have no jurisdiction to investigate other parts.

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (21 017 497)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 10-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant can appeal to the Planning Inspector.

  • London Borough of Havering (21 016 478)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 10-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s first planning application. This is because the complaint is late and we could not say the Council’s actions affected its decision or caused Mr X significant injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s second planning application as there is not enough evidence of fault.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (20 012 539)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 10-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

  • North Northamptonshire Council (21 016 004)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 10-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a code of conduct complaint against a councillor. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaint.

  • Preston City Council (21 017 334)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 09-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications and a possible breach of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late. It is unlikely we will find fault, and the complainants have not been caused significant injustice, in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

  • South Ribble Borough Council (21 016 766)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 09-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (21 006 642)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 09-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms B complained the Council did not properly consider a planning application for development near to her home. She considered the proposals will have an adverse impact on the ecology of the site and that the mitigation measures were inadequate. There was fault in the way the Council handled Ms B’s complaint for which it should apologise.

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.

Privacy settings