You are here:

Planning application search, objections and comments

Planning application search

You can search for information submitted with a planning application and make comments on it; you can search in a number of ways - see Tips below. 

Find out about objecting to or commenting on planning applications - what will be considered and what you can comment on. Please note that when commenting on a planning application, you need to provide your full postal address, so that we will be able to notify you of any subsequent amendments made to the application.

  • Tip: Always try and use the planning reference number.
  • Tip: Please note that the % symbol can be used as a wildcard character. For example you can use the % in place of parts of the address that are unknown. ie. South %
  • Tip: When searching by address, so as to obtain the most recent applications, also add in an appropriate date range
  • Tip: When searching for an address with " 's" or "st". in the name, try it with and without punctuation
  • Tip: The information held relating to applications before 1986 is limited to only the details of the proposal, the location, the decision made and the decision date.

Search for and comment on a Planning Application

Common decision codes

  • FAPG/OAPG/ARMG - Permission granted (often subject to conditions)
  • FAPREF/OAPREF/ARMREF - Permission refused
  • WV - Valid application withdrawn
  • ADVCON/ADVREF - Advertisement Consent Granted/Refused
  • LAWISS/LAWREF - Certificate of Lawfulness Issued/Refused
  • TPOG/TPOREF - Tree Preservation Order Consent Granted/Refused

View the complete list of decision codes.

The following information has been produced by North Warwickshire Borough Council for information purposes only. The Council is not responsible for any actions taken that are based on content obtained by using this search facility. Whilst every effort is made to ensure accuracy, the authority cannot be responsible for guaranteeing it.

Last updated Thursday, 13th October 2016

Was this information useful?

You said, we did