Summary: The Complainant says the Council failed to properly exercise its planning controls allowing a material change of use to go unchallenged. He says the Council allowed a second chance to apply for planning permission contrary to planning law and failed to properly exercise its environmental health powers. The Council says it acted in line with its understanding of planning law, government guidance and its enforcement policy. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s lack of effective action to address a breach of an enforcement notice against her neighbour, causing her to suffer loss of amenity. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision making or actions.

Summary: Mr G complained about a remedy that the Council proposed, after it had failed to enforce a planning condition to erect a fence around his property. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was fault in the way the Council dealt with the remedy, as well as how they responded to his complaints. The Council has agreed to offer an alternative financial remedy to Mr F.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s requirement that he pay a fee for his Building Control application to check work carried out by the electrician he employed. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on the part of the Council with regards to its handling of an outline planning application. However, we consider it unlikely on balance of probabilities that the outcome would have been different even if the Council had acted without fault. The Council has agreed to take action to address the distress and inconvenience caused to the complainant by its fault.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to protect or enhance the character and appearance of a conservation area near his home. He says this happened because it failed to put in place an updated local development scheme or plan which led to the approval of a planning application for a residential dwelling in the area. He also complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action after the dwelling was built higher than the level shown on the approved plans. Moreover, he complains about the way the Council handled his complaint about these matters. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not ensuring it had sufficient information about the base height of the dwelling before it decided to grant planning permission. However, we have not found fault in relation to any other part of Mr X’s complaint. The fault we identified did not cause him or his neighbours any significant injustice that requires remedial action. However, we have made a service improvement recommendation to the Council to prevent this fault from reoccurring, which it accepts.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to properly consider an application to construct a nursery on a site near the homes of himself and a group of local people. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint further, because a new full application is being considered by the Council and most of the people on whose behalf he complains have not suffered sufficient injustice to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will not consider planning applications that are still being considered. If Mr B is still unhappy once the new retrospective application is decided, he can make a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mrs D complained that the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for a neighbouring property. The Council was at fault, because it failed to notify her of the application and did not consider the impact the development would have on her property. However, the outcome of the planning application would not have been different even if Mrs D had objected. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy to Mrs D for her time and trouble.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to protect or enhance the character and appearance of a conservation area near his home. He says this happened because it failed to put in place an updated local development scheme or plan which led to the approval of a planning application for a residential dwelling in the area. He also complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action after the dwelling was built higher than the level shown on the approved plans. Moreover, he complains about the way the Council handled his complaint about these matters. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not ensuring it had sufficient information about the base height of the dwelling before it decided to grant planning permission. However, we have not found fault in relation to any other part of Mr X’s complaint. The fault we identified did not cause him or his neighbours any significant injustice that requires remedial action. However, we have made a service improvement recommendation to the Council to prevent this fault from reoccurring, which it accepts.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application for a neighbour’s development of a new property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the way the Council has considered two planning applications by his neighbour. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation as the Council did not approve either planning application.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Q’s complaint about Building Control inspections of two properties she says are dangerous. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council, and another body may be better placed to consider part of the complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaints about a planning enforcement notice and the Council’s decisions to refuse his planning applications for development he has carried out. Mr B has used his right of appeal against the enforcement notice to the Planning Inspector and the Ombudsman has no power to investigate this complaint. And where Mr B is unhappy with the outcome of planning applications he has made, it is reasonable to expect him to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has considered his building regulations application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Ombudsman considers that the Council is not responsible for the faults of the builder and there is a more appropriate private remedy available.

Summary: Mr X complains about the grant of planning permission for the development of houses near him which has reduced the amount of parking available to him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against an alleged breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council gave his builder incorrect advice while he was building Mr X’s extension. The Council is not responsible for any issues with the builder’s work and it is therefore unlikely we could achieve anything for Mr X.

Summary: A Town Council complains about a lack of planning enforcement by the District Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the complaint has not been made by a member of the public.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to a neighbour to build a garage that is on a flood zone. He also complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action about unauthorised development on the same site. The Ombudsman has found some fault in the way the decision was made but it did not cause a significant injustice to Mr X. The Ombudsman has found no fault in respect of the enforcement matter.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application for a café and outdoor seating area next to his home. He also complains about the Council’s consideration of noise from the use of the outdoor seating area. It was fault that the Council did not consider Mr B’s correspondence over the summer of 2018 as complaints about noise and whether further action was necessary. There was delay in considering his complaint. The Council will apologise and, if Mr B complains further, consider if any further action is necessary.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to ensure a housing developer built a wall on the boundary of his property. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision on a planning condition.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of two planning applications. Mr Q’s complaint about the first application is late. And he has not suffered any injustice because of the alleged fault in the Council’s handling of the second application.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to the complainant’s property. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council. The complainant can take court action against the Council if he believes it is responsible for the damage.

Summary: Mr C complained about how the Council handled a planning application to build a garage on land neighbouring his grade II listed home. The Council failed to notify him of the planning application contrary to its normal process. It has apologised to Mr C for this and that he lost the opportunity to object to the development. It is not clear from its files that the Council considered the impact on Mr C or the setting of the listed building. However, the Council does not consider the garage will have a harmful impact on Mr C’s home. It has agreed to review its processes so it is clear that it has considered the impact on listed buildings when it decides planning applications.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a change of use of a property from office to temporary hostel. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council allowed her neighbour to build an extension that affects her privacy. This has caused her significant stress and loss of amenity in her home. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the Council’s decision to recognise the extension as a permitted development.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about planning permission granted to the complainant’s neighbour. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council has caused the complainant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a retrospective planning application. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. And in any event, the alleged fault has not caused Mrs Q any injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council investigated his reports of a breach of planning control. And about its failure to follow its published complaints procedure. The Ombudsman will not investigate these complaints. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council investigated and the action taken, on the reports of breaches of planning control. And we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice arising from the way the Council dealt with his complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not taken planning enforcement action against a neighbour’s shed. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time and there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault in its handling of a planning application for alterations to a water feature near his home. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council and he has ended his investigation of this matter.