Summary: Mr C complains the Council wrongly approved an outline planning application for residential housing before the outcome of an appeal on a separate application which was essentially the same scheme. Mr C says he will suffer from the wider landscape impact and the development will devalue his property and he has wasted time and money in making representations for the appeal. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his neighbour’s planning application. The Council took too long to deal with Mr X’s complaint, but this did not cause a significant injustice to Mr and Mrs X as it did not affect the outcome.
Summary: Mr X complained the Council approved a planning application that affected his amenity and his private rights. There was no fault in the process by which decisions are made.
Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged fault in its handling of a planning application for development at a property next to the complainant’s home.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about planning enforcement matters. It is reasonable to expect Mr A to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector if he wanted to challenge the Council’s decision to serve enforcement notices.
Summary: Mr X complains that he was misled by the Council into not appealing a refusal of planning permission to a Planning Inspector. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Summary: Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his concerns about a gym in the building where he lives. There is evidence of some fault with how the Council dealt with the planning application for the gym. There is no fault with how it dealt with Mr X’s complaints about excessive noise and breaches of planning control.
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to a planning application made by his neighbour in 2015 and a subsequent application to vary the permission in 2018. The Ombudsman finds the way the Council handled the issues Mr X complains about was not fault.
Summary: Mr X complains about the service the Council provided to him prior to and during the planning application process. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council dealt with a planning application for development near the complainant’s home. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council.
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement action to control development in his area. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice to Mr X.
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because the complaint is late.
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council acted unreasonably when taking planning enforcement action against him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he appealed to a Planning Inspector.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a planning decision made by the Council in 1991. The complaint is made too late and the Ombudsman could not provide any worthwhile outcome for the complainant.
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for a development of single storey residential properties.
Summary: Ms A and Mr B complain about the way the Council considered a neighbour’s planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation as the Council refused the planning application.
Summary: Mr J complains about the conduct of Council officers when they visited as part of a planning enforcement investigation. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint and has agreed recommendations, including an apology.
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not followed legal requirements when it assigned section 106 contributions to a new leisure centre development in a nearby town. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as Ms X has not suffered a significant personal injustice because of the alleged fault.
Summary: Mr X complains the Council is refusing to take enforcement action against his neighbour for altering his driveway. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X any injustice. And we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.
Summary: The Council correctly determined a planning application and dealt with enforcement complaints. There was some service failure to Mr B. The Council has offered an appropriate remedy; to apologise and pay £250.
Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council has dealt with pre planning application advice from a business that wishes to submit a planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because no significant injustice is considered to be caused where a planning application has not yet been made or determined.
Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault in how it decided a planning application for a site near his home. The Ombudsman has found some evidence of fault however he does not consider this altered the outcome of the application. For this reason, he has ended his consideration of this complaint.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not give him a fair chance to apply to speak at a planning committee meeting. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of planning permission and a subsequent enforcement notice. The Planning Inspectorate has considered both matters following an appeal by the complainant.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an extension and an allegation that some of the complainant’s land has been stolen. This is because this is a late complaint, which the Ombudsman has previously considered, and because land disputes, between neighbours, are private matters.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. Part of the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in its handling of more recent matters causing Mr X significant injustice.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his request for pre-application planning advice. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission to a neighbour for an extension and balcony. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to issue a decision on a planning application. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant personal injustice.
Summary: Mrs B complained about the way the Council dealt with a planning applications for a housing development near her home. The Council was not at fault in the way it considered the planning applications.
Summary: The Council published controversial comments Mr D made about his neighbour’s application to retrospectively vary his planning permission to retain an unauthorised garage. Mr D said this caused the end of a longstanding friendship with his neighbour. We consider the Council acted with fault. But, we cannot conclude that the emotive nature of Mr D’s comments caused the rift. This might have happened anyway in response to Mr D’s subsequent toned down objections.
We look at individual complaints about local public services and all registerable social care providers in England.
We remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve services. When we find a council or care provider has done something wrong, we recommend how it should put it right. We are free to use and make our decisions independently.
