Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council considered flood risk when it granted planning permission for a housing development near his home. He is concerned that flood risk will increase. There was no fault in how the Council assessed or decided the planning application. The Council did take too long to respond to Mr B’s complaint about this. It has apologised for the delay and reallocated resources. Mr B was frustrated by the delay but the impact on him was limited because there was no fault by the Council in the matters he complained about.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not kept proper records about the building control regulations applied to the development where he owns a flat. He also complains the Council has not taken enforcement action to correct breaches of planning control. Or acted to prevent anti-social behaviour taking place. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint as it is late.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for a housing development near her home. The Council was not at fault in how it considered the planning application.

Summary: Mr B has complained that the Council did not properly consider the impact on his amenity when granting permission for his neighbour’s extension. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council considered the application, so we cannot question its decision.

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council has not taken action about numerous problems at the housing development where he lives, which has not been completed by the developer. Mr B says the problems include a lack of a drainage system which has meant properties have been flooded by sewage. It is too early to give detailed consideration to the issues Mr B complains about. This is because the Council’s planning enforcement investigation is still ongoing.

Summary: Mr X complains of unreasonable delay by the Council in investigating a report he made of a breach of planning control at a neighbouring property. There was unreasonable delay by the Council. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice to the complainant by completing its planning enforcement investigation within four weeks. It also agreed a time and trouble payment to Mr X.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council unreasonably refused her planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because she has a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to properly consider their amenity when considering a planning application for developing a site opposite their home. There was fault by the Council. However, we found it was unlikely the outcome of the planning application was flawed as a result.

Summary: The Council was at fault in not providing the complainant with an opportunity to comment on a change of ground levels for a neighbouring development, but its apology was a suitable remedy for the limited injustice caused. The Council has taken suitable actions to mitigate the limited impact of the changed levels on the complainant’s amenity.

Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s response to complaints that it has not met with residents to answer questions about a planning permission for a neighbouring house. The planning team has now met with the complainants and there was no fault in the complaints team’s decision to decline a meeting. The Council has explained why it granted permission without needing an extra flood risk assessment.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. It is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr X significant injustice or that investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for him.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his neighbour’s planning permission for a dormer roof extension. The Council did not cause Mr X injustice in the way it publicised the planning application or told him what action he could take to oppose it or complain if the Council granted planning permission; and there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the planning decision the Council reached. So an investigation is not warranted.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning applications as the issue is late. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning applications as we have previously declined to deal with the issue.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s approval of a planning application for development near to her home. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council, save for an error in its response to Mrs B’s complaint. That error did not impact on the decision to approve the application nor cause Mrs B significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs X says the Council refused to enforce an informal agreement reached on a breach of planning control at a neighbouring property in the 1980s. But the Council can no longer take enforcement action against the breach. An investigation by the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the grant of planning permission for development next to the complainant’s home as he is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered a significant personal injustice as a direct result of the alleged fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council wrongly granted planning permission for a garage to be located close to trees on Mr and Mrs X’s boundary. There is no fault in how the Council decided a non material application which enabled the planning permission to be implemented. But the Council is at fault for failing to keep Mr and Mrs X informed of the action it was taking including seeking a non material amendment. The faults by the Council caused significant distress and anxiety to Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy Mr and Mrs X’s injustice by making a payment of £600 to them and to review its planning and complaints procedures.

Summary: The Council is not at fault for not notifying Mr X of a planning application and there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the impact of the development on Mr X’s trees.

Summary: Mr X says the Council did not properly apply its own guidance when it considered two planning applications he submitted. No further action is needed to pursue this complaint because Mr X could have used an alternative remedy and it is reasonable to expect him to have done so.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has considered his planning application which resulted in extra costs. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector who can consider this matter.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has failed to enforce building regulations on a house he bought. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X and others complain about the Council’s decision to approve a development on land near their homes. They are concerned a biomass or wood burning boiler will cause pollution and nuisance. There was some fault in the way the decision was made, but it made no difference to the outcome of the planning decision.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly determine a neighbour’s planning application and it failed to properly consider an enforcement matter. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council properly publicised a planning application and properly considered the impact of the development on the complainant. However, the Council was at fault in allowing undue delay in responding to the complainant’s concerns about these matters, but has provided a suitable remedy for the limited injustice caused to him.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not inform him that it had allowed a developer to carry out works that will cause noise and disturb him. There was no fault in the way the Council has acted.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Authority’s failure to consult them on revised plans for their neighbour’s planning application. They say the development will impact their amenities. We have ended our investigation as we would not be able to show the failure to consult made any difference to the outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint that the Council failed to negotiate with the complainant before serving an enforcement notice. This is because the Ombudsman cannot investigate where the complainant has already used their right of appeal to a government minister.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application, and the subsequent complaints process. This is because the complainant has not suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the alleged fault in the determination of the application, and we would not normally investigate the complaints process in isolation.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s actions in issuing him with two Planning Enforcement Notices. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because Mr B has used his appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate so placing the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council threatened to take enforcement action against him for the actions of a neighbour’s builder. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice has a private remedy.

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council failed to provide the remedy It agreed to provide in respect of an earlier complaint investigated by the Ombudsman. On the evidence so far seen, the Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council, for which further remedy is now recommended.

Summary: Mr and Mrs D complain the Council has failed to issue a completion certificate for building works done to their home. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council has failed to take enforcement action on a development at a neighbouring property. They say the development has a direct impact on their amenity. There is no fault in how the Council considered the issue and came to its decision. There is also no fault in how it handled Mr and Mrs X’s complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s issue of a completion certificate for a property she owns. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council or that we could achieve what Ms X wants.

Summary: Mr C complained that the Council failed to properly consider a planning application on a neighbouring property. Based on the evidence, the Council is at fault as it failed to notify Mr C of the application. This denied Mr C the opportunity to object to the planning application and caused him time and trouble to complain. To remedy this the Council should pay him £150. The Ombudsman found no further fault in the way the Council made its decsion.

Summary: Mr C complains that the Council has granted planning permission for a bungalow next to his house. The Ombudsman found some fault by the Council in the way it considered the planning application. But the Council’s decision was unlikely to be different if this fault had not occurred. So, Mr C did not suffer significant injustice.

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider what reasonable adjustments, if any, it should make to take account of disability when it was deciding on planning enforcement action. That was fault, but it is unlikely there would have been a significantly different outcome had that fault not occurred.