New planning complaint decisions

A weekly update on planning complaint decisions

Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.

Somerset Council (23 014 333)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way a planning application was considered as no decision has yet been made, so any injustice is speculative and would not warrant investigation.
Cheltenham Borough Council (24 006 293)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning processes and decisions on applications for a development site next to her property. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 220)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s discharge of several pre-commencement planning conditions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome.
Dover District Council (24 008 418)

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.
Sunderland City Council (23 020 000)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to change the use of a building from residential to supported accommodation. Mr X said this will reduce the value of his home, will impact on his family and the community, and fears anti-social behaviour from the residents. We do not find the Council at fault.
Test Valley Borough Council (24 005 487)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s concerns about the accuracy of plans submitted for his neighbour’s development. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Buckinghamshire Council (23 015 392)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action against surface and foul water flooding from a nearby development. The Council was not at fault in its investigation of flooding issues, or in its consideration of planning applications for the development. There was fault in the Council’s complaint handling, but this did not cause Mr X significant injustice.
Swindon Borough Council (24 000 936)

Summary: Mr A says the Council misadvised him about the need to submit a planning application in 2024. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council and have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 007 046)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application, which it refused. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal against the decision to the Planning Inspector.
Somerset Council (24 008 047)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application and the pre-application advice it provided. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.
Broxtowe Borough Council (24 008 317)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
London Borough of Brent (24 006 990)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.