Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s issue of a Notice requiring her to clean up land. Mrs X has used her right of appeal against the Notice and we cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s actions at court.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to enforce planning conditions about night time deliveries. We discontinued the investigation, which was at an early stage, as the Council received and, later, decided an application to change the planning conditions.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to deal with use of a property that affected his home and family life. The Council properly considered whether the use needed planning permission and whether a nuisance existed. The Council’s communications with Mr X were not always clear but, it adequately explained its position to Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has considered planning applications he has made and its decision to issue enforcement notices against him for planning breaches. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he could appeal planning application refusals to a Planning Inspector and he has appealed against enforcement notices to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about two planning applications. The complainant has appealed to a government minister and the law says we have no jurisdiction when this is the case.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council granted planning permission for a bigger dwelling than he was allowed on land he used to own. The Council’s recent decision does not cause Mr X injustice and if he was unhappy with the decision on his application it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr B’s complaints about the way the Council has considered four planning applications. Mr B complains on behalf of a parish council and the Ombudsman has no power to investigate complaints raised by public bodies.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms B’s complaint about the way the Council has considered a planning application. Ms B complains on behalf of a parish meeting and the Ombudsman has no power to investigate complaints from public bodies.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement actions requiring the removal of a fence. The complaint is outside jurisdiction because of the use of a right of appeal to the planning inspector. Further action is appealable.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly granted planning permission for development. There is no evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant injustice. The complainant can seek a remedy in court if he believes the Council has caused him financial loss.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council gave an inaccurate description of a development when it sent him a consultation, did not respond to his letters seeking clarification and did not properly assess the impact on his solar panels. The Ombudsman finds there was fault when the Council publicised the planning application with a factually wrong description. However, there is no evidence this caused any significant injustice to Mr X. Further, there was no fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s letters of representation or in its conclusion the effect of the development on his solar panels was not a material planning consideration.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his amenity before it approved a planning application for residential development near his home. Mr X says the development causes a significant loss of light to his home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider the Neighbourhood Plan before making a planning decision. We should end our investigation as Mr X was not caused an injustice and it is unlikely that further investigation would result in a finding of fault.

Summary: Mr X has complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development near his home. There is some fault with how the Council has dealt with the planning application, but this has caused no injustice.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council has not acted to stop a nearby dog breeding business, despite a planning enforcement notice preventing such activity being in force since 2005. We do not uphold this complaint. We consider there is no fault in the Council giving the business a dog breeding license despite the planning enforcement notice. We also consider it reasonable for the Council not to have yet taken planning enforcement action given all the circumstances of the case.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly granted permission for changes of use of a business premises. The Council’s original decision, which established the principle of class B2 use on the site, dates to more than 15 years ago and it is unlikely we could effectively investigate the issues Mr X complains about or achieve any worthwhile outcome for him.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council will not take enforcement action to reduce the size of his neighbour’s fence. There is no fault in the Council’s decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has handled the complainant’s concerns about signs erected by a school at a playing field. This is because the complainant has not suffered a significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. This is because the Council has refused the application. Therefore, the complainant has not suffered a significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mr B has complained about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control at a development near his home. There is evidence of some fault by the Council, but no substantive injustice resulted.

Summary: Mr X has complained the Council has not taken enforcement action against the owner of a site near his home. There is evidence of some fault with how the Council dealt with these matters but this has not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: The Council gave suitable advice about permitted development rights to the complainant, through direct communications and its planning guidance documents. It also handled the relevant planning applications without fault.

Summary: Mr F complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action for a breach of planning control. The Ombudsman has not found fault.

Summary: The Council acted without fault in its handling of planning applications and in its enforcement actions over an unauthorised gate. The Council has offered a remedy for faults it acknowledged in its complaints handling and has taken steps to improve its complaints processes, showing learning from the complaint.

Summary: Mr C complains about the Council’s consideration of an outline planning application which he says will result in a loss of outlook, wildlife and value to his property. The Ombudsman has ended his involvement as we cannot at this stage assess the extent of Mr C’s injustice.

Summary: Mr C says the Council wrongly granted permissions for a care home near his house and failed to control a noise nuisance coming from the care home once built. The Council took professional decisions with which Mr C disagrees. It was not at fault.

Summary: Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a single storey extension. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council was at fault in providing incorrect information to its Planning Committee on open space provision in a development. However, we do not consider this affected the Committee’s decision or caused the complainant any injustice.

Summary: Mrs F complains the Council did not properly consider a planning application for works near her property and failed to notify her and other residents of the application. She also complains about the way the Council dealt with her complaint. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council did not properly notify her that she was no longer eligible for a self-build exemption from the Community Infrastructure Levy. As a result, she lost her chance to appeal against what she considers to be an unreasonable charge. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the notification process. As there were appeal rights available which we consider that Mrs B could reasonably have used, we consider that any dispute over the liability or the amount due is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to notify the complainants about their neighbour’s planning application. This because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint that the Council has not taken account of the cumulative, adverse impact from two major construction developments. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council concerning this matter.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council handled a planning application for extra pitches at a traveller site. There is not enough evidence of fault which would have resulted in a different planning decision by the committee. If the development goes ahead, there is not enough evidence it would cause a significant personal injustice to Mr X. Also, the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. Her injustice stems from the actions of her neighbour, rather than any fault by the Council, and this is a private civil matter between the two parties which the Council is not responsible for.