Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council handled planning matters that affect her home. Mrs X says she has been unable to progress renovations to her home, has incurred application fees that may have been unnecessary, and has spent time and trouble chasing the Council for responses. She says this has all caused her stress. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for wrongly issuing a Certificate of Lawfulness and for the way it handled her complaint. We find this fault caused Mrs X injustice. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the Council’s refund of the Certificate of Lawfulness application fee is a suitable remedy for that fault. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused by the fault in its complaint handling.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application at a neighbouring property. We found fault because the Council failed to properly consider the impact of the 45-degree code onto Mr X’s property. But this fault did not cause an injustice to Mr X and so we are completing our investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council did not notify them of their neighbour’s planning application and did not consider how the new extension would impact on access to their drive. There was no fault by the Council. It sent a notification letter which Mr and Mrs B did not receive. It properly assessed the planning application. It investigated a subsequent breach of planning permission without delay.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider the noise produced by his client’s business before granting planning permission for two new homes. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application. Nor do we consider the business has suffered any significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing planning permission to Mr X. We do not have Mr X’s consent for the complaint. We would not normally investigate because Mr X has a right of appeal to the planning inspector.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his planning applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he appealed to a Planning Inspector and could make a further appeal on a separate planning application.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y about the Council’s failure to take appropriate action in response to concerns about planning, noise and licensing relating to a nearby restaurant. The Ombudsman does not uphold the complaint. Whilst Mr X disagrees with the merits of the Council’s decisions, there is no evidence of procedural fault which would allow us to question those decisions.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council delayed in determining her Certificate of Lawful Development application, or the Council’s decision to refuse that application. Mrs X had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate about the delay. She has a right of appeal to the same body against the Council’s decision on the certificate.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to properly consider the complainant’s suggestions for a replacement window in a Listed Building, following the service of an enforcement notice. This is because the complainant could have appealed against the notice to the Planning Inspectorate, she can submit a planning application if she thinks her alternative proposal is acceptable in planning terms, and she has not suffered a significant injustice as a result of alleged financial advice given by a council officer.

Summary: Mrs X complains about lack of Council planning enforcement action against her neighbour. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council has now initiated action and this is considered a remedy to the complaint.

Summary: Based on the information seen so far we consider there was no fault in the processes the Council followed in its consideration of the relevant planning application, in its design and safety audit of a related road crossing and in its funding of the works for the crossing for a local school.

Summary: There was avoidable delay by the Council in dealing with correspondence about Mr X’s development, for which it has apologised. The Council’s responses were satisfactory and its delays were not the cause of the time, trouble and costs incurred by Mr X in making a new planning application.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it dealt with Ms X’s report of a breach of planning control near her home.

Summary: Mr B complained about the way in which the Council granted planning permission for development near his property. We found there was fault by the Council for including the wrong separation distance in the case officer’s report but consider this error did not affect the decision that was made.

Summary: Mrs A complains about a council’s failure to take action against her neighbour in 2016. Her complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to investigate it now.

Summary: Mr X complains about the process used by the Council to appoint a developer to build a leisure resort. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the injustice affects all or most of the population.

Summary: there was no fault in the way the Council considered a planning application for redevelopment of a site adjacent to Mr X’s home.

Summary: We have discontinued this investigation because the Council is currently carrying out a planning enforcement investigation on the matters complained about. Once it has completed that action, the complainant may bring her complaints back to us if she wishes to.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with his planning application and information breaches by the Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he had a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector and he complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mr X complains about a developer who has failed to comply with building regulations for a property he bought. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he has a legal action available against the developer and the law does not hold councils responsible for financial losses caused by building regulation failure.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has taken planning enforcement action against him for a garage door he fitted. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he appealed to a Planning Inspector and had a right of appeal against the enforcement notice. This is now a matter for the courts.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council determined a planning application for a residential development. This is because the planning permission has not yet been issued, so the alleged fault has not caused a significant injustice at the present time.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council failed to tell him it had approved his neighbour’s planning application and, although the building work has not been done in accordance with the approved plans, the Council failed to take enforcement action. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council since June 2018.

Summary: Mr X complains about the lack of support received for his planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there was a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector against the Council’s refusal as well as any delay.