Summary: Mr C complains the Council constantly threatened him with enforcement action despite him having listed building consent. The Ombudsman has found some evidence of fault by the Council because it failed to explain clearly to Mr C its powers and what it expected of him. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council has agreed to the recommended actions.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve a neighbour’s application to use an outbuilding for holiday lets with associated car parking near to his property. And about how the Council dealt with his enforcement complaints. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to carry out a noise assessment of a restaurant extractor as agreed when it accepted fault in a previous case decided by the Ombudsman, causing him to suffer continued noise. The Council has provided a copy of a suitable assessment, which shows there is no reason to act against the noise level. It was therefore not at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision not to take formal enforcement action and if Mr X believes the Council has disclosed personal information to a third party he should refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mrs X complains a building control officer wrongly advised that the proposed extension to her property should have a raft foundation. The Council’s requirement that Mrs X build her extension with raft foundations even though the precise ground conditions were unknown amounts to fault causing an injustice.

Summary: The Council did not follow its own publicity policy when consulting on a planning application, which is fault. This fault did not cause injustice. The Council’s handling of data protection issues is better considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office, but there is no evidence of injustice. There was no fault in the remaining elements of this complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore completed his investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the problems experienced obtaining planning permission and authorisation for a fence and vehicular crossing. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss Q’s complaint that Building Control Officers wrongly advised her builders to dig one metre deep foundations for her house extension. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Miss Q would like.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has copies of photographs as part of his planning application which he wishes to be destroyed. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this is a matter for the Information Commissioner.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision not to enforce against breaches of planning control at a development site close to his home. The Ombudsman does not uphold this part of the complaint because the Council was entitled to resolve the breaches informally. Mr Y also complains about the Council’s decision to grant permission for noisy works under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act. The Ombudsman finds fault because the Council approved the application without visiting the site and noting errors in the measurements. This meant the developer was not required to install additional acoustic barriers, and so Mr Y suffered more disturbance than necessary for eight nights in total. The Council will apologise and pay £150 to Mr Y.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not intend to 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: Mrs X complained the Council did not notify her about her neighbour’s planning application, which she thinks will affect her amenity. I find no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council refuses to make her neighbours correct a breach of planning control. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to send a planning notification letter to her property in 2015, and its decision not to take enforcement action against the development being built partially on Mrs X’s land. The Council has apologised for not sending the letter, which is the appropriate remedy. It was not fault by the Council which resulted in the development encroaching on Mrs X’s land. That is a private civil matter between Mrs X and the development’s owner.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has allowed window film instead of obscure glazing to be used for windows in a building which overlooks his property. 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: Mr X complains about planning permission for development which has affected the environment. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time and Mr X has suffered no significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B have complained that the Council has failed to take appropriate action to deal with noise and other nuisance from events at a nearby farm. The Ombudsman has found no significant fault in the way the Council responded to Mr and Mrs B’s concerns.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council officers’ and Planning Application Committee’s consideration of an application to develop a school’s sports facilities near his home. There is not enough evidence of fault by officers or the planning committee to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to enforce against a planning breach by his neighbour Mr Y. Mr Y’s guttering on his two-storey side extension overhangs Mr X’s one-storey extension. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it reached its professional judgement not to take enforcement action against Mr Y.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council failed to take enforcement action when their neighbour stored two shipping containers and a large quantity of used tyres on a paddock adjoining their home. There was fault by the Council because it did not investigate the use of the containers but relied on this in its decision not to take action, and it failed to explain how the tyres could constitute a wall and so be permitted development. The Council’s shortcomings caused Mr and Mrs B frustration and meant they had to complain to the Ombudsman. The Council has agreed to investigate these issues again, apologise to Mr and Mrs B and pay them £150 in recognition of the impact on them.

Summary: The Council acted properly in its consideration of a planning application, including Green Belt issues and the complainant’s amenity.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mr Z’s complaint about its handling of a neighbour’s planning applications. The Council met its legal responsibilities by publicising them and bringing them to Mr Z’s attention. It properly considered their impact on his amenities. While it failed to promptly respond to one of his letters, it apologised for the delay. I consider the failure too minor to justify a fault finding.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about Suffolk Coastal District Council’s procedure for deciding planning applications under delegated authority. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault.

Summary: Dr B complains the Council failed to tell her about a planning application which impacted her home. And then it put the site notice where the public could not easily see it. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Dr B. And will pay attention to where it places site notices in the future.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a certificate of lawfulness. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to add a condition about the use of materials to a neighbour’s planning permission. As a result of this fault, the neighbour has used plastic cladding when the Council intended natural timbers to be used. The use of this material has impacted on Mr X’s visual amenity. An appropriate remedy is proposed.

Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain the Council failed to add a condition about the use of materials to a neighbour’s planning permission. As a result of this fault, the neighbour has used plastic cladding when the Council intended natural timbers to be used. The use of this material has impacted on Mr and Mrs Y’s visual amenity. An appropriate remedy is agreed.

Summary: Ms C complained about how the Council considered a planning application for a neighbouring property, and how it managed the planning process. However, we have not found fault with how the Council considered the planning application or how it handled the process.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has allowed her neighbour to build over the building line on her property. And it refuses to take action on an unsafe fence. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. The complaint is late and there is no evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision to grant planning permission.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to consult him and fellow councillors about a large residential project, and the time it took to investigate the matter. The Ombudsman can only accept complaints from members of the public or their authorised representatives. Mr X is a serving councillor, complaining about something relating to his position as a councillor. The Ombudsman cannot accept such complaints.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly granted his neighbour planning permission to develop his property in 2017. The complaint is late and Mr X has applied to the court for Judicial Review of the Council’s decision. Mr X’s legal challenge means we have no jurisdiction to investigate any complaint about the Council’s handling of the planning application.