Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve housing development on land behind his home. Mr X says his privacy is seriously affected by new houses built very close to his home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council allowed her neighbour to build a raised structure that is not in line with its planning policies. She says the structure is overbearing. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council considered the planning application or whether to take enforcement action.

Summary: Mr B complains that, in granting planning permission for a development next to his property, the Council failed to properly consider the impact on his amenity, particularly in relation to loss of privacy. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the application was considered. But he finds the Council was at fault in failing to provide a full response to Mr B’s complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not consult him about a planning application and failed to consider the impact of the proposal on his amenity. He says he will be overlooked by the development and suffer a loss of privacy. The Council is at fault for not clearly recording how it considered the impact of the proposal on Mr X’s amenity but this has not caused him an injustice because this has not affected the planning decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council’s planning report is inaccurate where it refers to the relationship of Ms B’s property against her neighbours; it relied on inaccurate plans. If the Council did everything right It is likely it would still have granted planning permission, so the result is the same. The impact on Ms B’s property is from the development not through fault of the Council; the Council found the impact is acceptable. The Council delayed putting information on the planning portal, failed to send Ms B the planning decision, and failed to properly complete its complaint process. This caused Ms B upset, frustration, time and trouble. The Council will apologise and improve procedures.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against her neighbour. The Council investigated, but found no breach of planning controls. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained his neighbour built a garage without planning permission and the builder buried asbestos waste in the neighbour’s garden. Mr X says the garage affects his amenity and is concerned the buried asbestos might affect his health. The Council took no formal enforcement action. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decisions.

Summary: The Council failed to notify the complainant of a planning application, failed to show it considered specific information when discharging a condition on the application and failed to properly explain its reasons for signposting to the Ombudsman at Stage 1 of its complaints process However, we do not consider the Council acted with fault on other aspects of the complaint. It remedied any harm from the lack of notification immediately and the other faults did not cause the complainant any personal harm.

Summary: Mrs C complains about how the Council dealt with development at her neighbour's property which she says has affected her residential amenity and caused her unnecessary time and money. The Ombudsman has ended his involvement as the complaint is late and some of the matters are not ones he can investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been discriminatory and inconsistent when giving pre‑application planning advice. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it responded to Mr X’s correspondence about an old planning permission.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s approval of planning permission for a nearby development. He also complains about the Council’s subsequent discharge of a condition, its method of consultation and the loss of planning files. The matters complained about date back to 2015 and 2016. We have discontinued our investigation as there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider matters which Mr Y has been aware of for more than 12 months.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council leading up to its decision not to take enforcement action over concrete footings. Complaints about applications to convert a barn into houses have not been investigated as one permission cannot be implemented and the other has been refused, so cause no injustice.

Summary: Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with his concerns about breaches of planning control. There is some evidence of fault by the Council. I am satisfied the Council’s agreement to pay Mr X £250 is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr K complained about how the Council dealt with various planning issues on the new residential estate he lives on. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. It has considered all the issues Mr K raised and explained how it has reached its decisions.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to ensure a developer complied with the conditions on planning permission for development where Mr X lives. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is late. And we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action about various issues at the housing development where he lives. Mr B says the development is not in line with planning permission, and his family have suffered as a result. We have ended our investigation. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mr B to have been aware of some of these issues prior to purchase. Also, one of Mr B’s complaints is late and where we have investigated, our view is the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to take action to require his neighbour to comply with three enforcement notices. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with the enforcement issues at the site from 2018 onwards although it failed to properly explain its decision not to take action on working hours to Mr B. An apology is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council wrongly issued a certificate of lawful use for a residential housing development in 2017 and failed to comply with Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. Mr C says this prevented a 2013 planning permission from lapsing and he will suffer a loss in value to his property, nuisance from construction and unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the matter. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the grant of planning permission for a conservatory that overlooks their house. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.

Summary: Mr C complains that the Council failed to publish a planning application on its planning portal, meaning he was unaware a garage extension would be built close to a property he has now purchased. I have concluded my investigation with a finding of no fault in how the Council published the application.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission to a local sailing club. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving a planning application for an agricultural building. This is because the complaint is late, and there are insufficient grounds to exercise discretion to consider the matter now.