Planning advice


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Boston Borough Council (17 000 098)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 24-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X and Ms Y's complaint about the Council's pre-application advice. It was the Council's decision on their subsequent planning application which caused their injustice, and it would be reasonable for them to appeal this to the Planning Inspectorate.

  • Chichester District Council (16 015 551)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 06-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council's building control officer who gave advice about her plans for a loft extension to her home did not tell her that she needed planning permission. The Ombudsman will not investigate this as it is unlikely he will find fault in the Council's actions.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (16 016 923)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision on his planning application and the subsequent response to his enquiries. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint. He could have appealed the Council's planning decision. Any injustice to Mr X from any delay in the Council providing advice is not enough to justify an investigation.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (16 013 170)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 08-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr X's complains the Council provided unreasonable advice on his proposals to develop a plot of land. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely he will find fault.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (16 015 340)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning advice 23-Feb-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's lack of or tardy response to his development proposals. The Council has now replied to Mr B so the Ombudsman could not achieve anything significant for him by pursuing this complaint.

  • Cherwell District Council (15 008 157)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 20-Feb-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of a reserved matters application submitted by Mr and Mrs Y. The Council has proposed to reimburse Mr and Mrs Y for the application fee and some of the costs associated with applications submitted by them during 2010 and 2011. The Ombudsman considers this proposed remedy suitably addresses the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X as a result of the fault she has identified. For this reason he has ended her investigation of this complaint.

  • West Lindsey District Council (16 010 030)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 31-Jan-2017

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X's request for pre-application advice.

  • Torridge District Council (16 006 833)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 10-Jan-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in not immediately updating planning guidance on its website following a change in the interpretation of a section of planning legislation. The website made it clear that the Council's website guidance should be seen as non-binding advice and not definitive procedure.

  • Torridge District Council (16 004 679)

    Statement Not upheld Planning advice 10-Jan-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in not immediately updating planning guidance on its website following a change in the interpretation of a section of planning legislation. The website made it clear that the Council's website guidance should be seen as non-binding advice and not definitive procedure.

  • South Gloucestershire Council (16 007 021)

    Statement Upheld Planning advice 19-Dec-2016

    Summary: The Council gave incorrect pre-application planning advice and failed to take appropriate action to progress a retrospective planning application to regularise the associated development. That was fault leading to injustice.

;