Summary: Mr B complains both councils, in successive planning decisions, did not properly consider his objections to a neighbouring development on highway safety grounds. We uphold the complaint finding that Taunton Deane Borough Council did not adequately address Mr B’s objections in a planning officer report. We consider this caused Mr B injustice although we do not consider the outcome of the planning applications would have been different, noting the outcome of the following planning application taken without fault. The current authority, Somerset West and Taunton Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and learn lessons from the complaint.

Summary: Mr B complains both councils, in successive planning decisions, did not properly consider his objections to a neighbouring development on highway safety grounds. We uphold the complaint finding that Taunton Deane Borough Council did not adequately address Mr B’s objections in a planning officer report. We consider this caused Mr B injustice although we do not consider the outcome of the planning applications would have been different, noting the outcome of the following planning application taken without fault. The current authority, Somerset West and Taunton Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and learn lessons from the complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant itself planning permission for a development in a flood plain. This is because the alleged fault in the determination of the Council’s planning application does not directly cause the complainant a significant personal injustice. And the complainant can submit his own planning application if he believes his development site should also receive planning permission.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s unprofessional handling of her planning application. Mrs B says the Council made factual errors, ignored evidence and changed a relevant policy without telling her. Mrs B also says the Council delayed making a decision. We cannot investigate Mrs B’s complaint. This is because Mrs B put in an appeal to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s decision. This provided a remedy for the alleged fault by the Council. Also, Mrs B could have appealed once the Council delayed making a decision.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint which alleged that it failed to enforce conditions of a planning permission granted to the operator of an ice rink in a park close to the complainant’s home.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged it misled the public over its dealings with a company which won a tender to operate an ice rink in a local park.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council is harassing him and interfering with his legal rights and legal processes in claiming adverse possession of a plot of land. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot investigate matters which are subject to legal proceedings. Nor can we order the Council to stop pursuing him for the costs of removing the wall materials.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s 2017 decision on his planning application. Mr X wants the Ombudsman to investigate the involvement of a local residents’ association in the planning process. But the issue is too old for the Ombudsman to investigate. Even if the complaint had been in time, the issues raised do not cause significant personal injustice to Mr X which would warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take enforcement action against a breach of planning control which he says caused him to lose part of his garden. There was some fault in the way the Council made its enforcement decision, but it did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X says the Council dropped a kerb without checking the owner of the property had planning permission for the works. There was fault by the Council because its highways officers did not check the development had planning permission before contractors started work on the kerb. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant personal injustice to warrant further investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: The Council failed to notify Mrs B of a planning application for a new house next door. This meant Mrs B lost the opportunity to object to the planning application. The Council apologised to her. However, there was no fault in how the Council assessed the planning application and so there is no further injustice to Mrs B and the Council need not take any further action to remedy her complaint.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to ensure the operator of a quarry was required to enter into an agreement with him to ensure that monitoring of his private water supply could take place. The Council had insufficient information to reach a sound decision but this did not cause any significant injustice to Mr B.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application and the advice it provided. There was no fault in the way the Council provided pre-application planning advice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault or that we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.