Summary: Mrs D and Mr E complain about the Council’s decision to approve extensions to a house next to their own. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in the Council’s decision or decision making procedure.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly told the complainant she needed planning permission to make alterations to a balcony. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the advice it gave, and the complainant has not suffered a significant personal injustice by the Council failing to provide examples of other planning applications for balcony alterations.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs Q complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application. She says the Council should not have approved the application because the application breached planning guidelines. She also says the Council considered inaccurate planning considerations. Mrs Q says the development will impact on the light her property will receive. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to tell him about important regulatory advice it received as part of its consultations on his planning application. The Council then approved a drainage scheme that did not comply with the water regulator’s rules. The Council accepts it failed to follow usual and good practice in that it failed to pass the information to the complainant or add an informative to his planning decision. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault and recommends a remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with a listed building enforcement investigation against her. Mrs X said the officers were officious and insensitive. The Council accepted its officers could have handled the investigation better, but insists it was entitled to take the action it did. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decisions to allow residential development on land near her home. Mrs X said that, as a result of this, a vehicle turning point was lost and the Council can no longer collect waste from outside residents’ homes. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decisions.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained about a series of planning decisions the Council made in relation to housing development on land near his home. The complainants believe the Council’s failures could cause harm to public trust in the planning system. Many of the decisions were made well before our 12-month time limit and there was no justification for investigating them now. For more recent decisions, we ended our investigation because we were not satisfied they caused the complainants or others a significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Authority failed to consider neighbour amenity, visit her property or notice one of the plans was incorrect before approving a planning application for a development site near her home. The Authority was not at fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to notify her of a planning application for a neighbouring property and failed to consider the impact of the proposal on her property. Based on the evidence the Ombudsman has seen, there was fault by the Council as the planning officer did not explain his thoughts on the impact on Mrs X’s property in his report. However, this did not cause any significant injustice to Mrs X so no remedy is necessary.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to return his objections to a planning application in 2017 for the caravan site where he lives. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council issued a planning enforcement notice against him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he appealed to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain the Council fail to act when their drive is blocked by neighbours’ and contractors’ car and vans. They also complain that the Council blocked their drive when repairing a streetlight. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council administered a ‘Section 106’ payment on a planning permission from 2007. The Section 106 agreement was a unilateral undertaking by Mr X’s firm to pay money to the Council once work started, so it could make sure certain extra works were done. The matter is best considered and determined by a court.

Summary: Mr P complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for new homes near his property. The Ombudsman has found one instance of fault with a letter not being responded to and has upheld the complaint in light of this. As there has been no significant injustice caused by the error he has completed the investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the way the Council has dealt with alleged breaches of planning control committed by a supermarket located next to their property. They say the breaches have impacted on their visual amenity and the level of noise around their home. The Ombudsman has found the Council was not at fault because it properly considered the concerns raised by Mr and Mrs X before deciding what action it would take to address them, if any. Moreover, it did not delay unnecessarily when dealing with these matters.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development next to their home. They also complain about the Council's decision to approve amendments and that it failed to take enforcement action to ensure compliance with the construction management plan. There was fault in the Council’s consideration of the detail of the amended application. The Council should apologise to the complainants.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to consider properly a planning application for a neighbouring extension. The Ombudsman has ended his involvement as the injustice caused to Mr C by the alleged fault is not so significant the Ombudsman would recommend a remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement actions requiring her to reduce the height of her fence and its communications with her. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mrs X had a right of appeal to the planning inspector.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his retrospective planning applications. This is because the use and availability of appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate place the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Council properly investigated planning enforcement concerns on a development. However, it did not handle the complainant’s complaints about these matters properly, causing limited injustice. The Council agreed an apology to remedy this and a review of the Council’s complaints information.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about matters relating to the Council’s handling of planning applications in connection with a property she wishes to rent out for short term lettings. The complaint falls outside our jurisdiction because Ms B has exercised her rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s decisions.

Summary: Mr X says the Council failed to take enforcement action against the breach of a planning condition by a local school. This complaint was closed because there was no fault by the Council in terms of its consideration of the planning enforcement matter.

Summary: Mr C complains about the Council’s approval of a school building behind his home. We do not uphold this complaint, finding no fault in the Council’s decision.