Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to carry out proper inspections or take appropriate action in relation to an unauthorised loft conversion and extension of the shared chimney at an adjoining property. The Council’s failure to consider/ record its consideration of whether the works to the chimney complied with the building regulations amounts to fault. This fault has not caused Mr X or his brother a significant injustice.

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

Summary: The Council was at fault in failing to assess in sufficient detail amended plans it received which moved a proposed garage development closer to Mr Y’s boundary. This omission did not adversely affect the Council’s eventual approval of the scheme. But, there was unreasonable delay in responding to Mr Y’s subsequent complaint. This too did not significantly affect matters.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with his report of a breach of planning control. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council was at fault in failing to properly assess a planning application by Mr W’s neighbours that would result in direct overlooking of his private amenity space from a ground floor window. There was also fault in the Council’s stage 1 complaint response. The neighbours have now resolved matters by erecting a boundary fence at their own cost. But, I have asked the Council to make a time and trouble payment to Mr W, and to make procedural improvements.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application. Ms X says the development affects her amenity and private rights over her land. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Summary: Mr B complains about the grant of planning permission for new housing near his home. Mr B says the Council did not properly consult residents before applying for permission and there were mistakes in the application. He says the development will impact on residents’ amenity. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council managed the planning application.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development near his home. It is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to consultation about a planning application. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council or that we could say its response directly caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the matter.

Summary: Mr X complained to the Council a nearby property was a House in Multiple Occupation. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has investigated Mr X’s complaint and it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different result.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered his planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he had a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector against the decision.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application at committee and the impact the decision to grant permission for the proposed development will have on her property and the wider area. 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 found no fault on Mr D’s complaint that the Council failed to tell him of various planning applications submitted by 2 neighbours. Nor was there evidence of fault on his complaint about its relationship with the agent used both by the neighbours and the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr D’s complaint that the Council failed to tell him of various planning applications submitted by 2 neighbours or properly consider their impact on his amenities. Nor was there evidence of fault on his complaint about its relationship with the agent used both by the neighbours and the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mrs D’s complaint that the Council failed to tell her of various planning applications submitted by 2 neighbours. Nor was there evidence of fault on her complaint about its relationship with the agent used both by the neighbours and the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking enforcement action against businesses use of outside storage which he says is a breach of planning conditions. There is insufficient injustice.

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to consider all relevant information when deciding to grant a certificate of lawfulness of use. The Council accepts it failed to upload some evidence on its website preventing the complainant from commenting on it but says the evidence was not crucial to its decision. It says having considered the complainant’s rebuttal of that evidence it would not have changed its decision. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault however, this is unlikely to have resulted in a different decision.

Summary: There is no fault by Durham County Council in relation to this complaint about actions of the Council’s archaeology team.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for his neighbour’s extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s delay in complying with a recommendation we made regarding his previous planning enforcement complaint. His injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application advice as it is unlikely we would find fault causing him significant injustice. We cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s planning application as Mr X has appealed against its decision.

Summary: The Council failed to properly investigate Mr B’s complaints about breaches of planning control. It delayed responding to some of Mr B’s concerns, it failed to respond to his formal complaint and there were failings in the way it decided to close the case. The Council has agreed to apologise and explain to Mr B why it is not currently taking enforcement action. It will also make a payment to Mr B and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council refuses to act on the complaints she has made about noise from a nearby car wash. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr B complains about two planning applications and their impact on the public right of way over a footpath. Mr B says there were errors in how the Council considered the applications and it should take enforcement action to stop infringement on the right of way. The Ombudsman will discontinue this investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with planning and enforcement issues raised by a residential development near their home. The complaint is late and there are no good grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate it now. There is not enough evidence of Council fault, even if the Ombudsman decided to investigate.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s failure to properly consider the nature of building works taking place at a property close to his which are causing noise nuisance. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council, realising its error, took action to refer the matter to the appropriate team for investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. The Council has provided a full response to the issue and it is unlikely we could add to this or that we would find fault in its handling of the matter.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It did not accept evidence that an outbuilding needed building regulation approval until the complainant had had to complain on several occasions, including the formal complaints process. An apology from the Council, the regularisation of the outbuilding and a payment of £100 for time and trouble seems a satisfactory remedy, subject to further comments.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action against a neighbour’s development. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time and there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has failed to determine his application for a Lawful Development Certificate. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr B to use his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about issues relating to a Grade 2 listed building. The Ombudsman has already investigated many of the issues raised by the complainant and will not do so again. He is unlikely to find evidence of other fault by the Council causing the complainant injustice that warrants his involvement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has refused to take planning enforcement action regarding the use of a piece of land as a car park. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and any injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement.