Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with a planning application for development next to his home, which impacts on his amenity. The Ombudsman finds the way the application was dealt with by the Council was not affected by fault.

Summary: the complainants say the Council failed to update its website when deciding to allow extra time for residents to comment on amendments to a planning application. They say this prevented people registering objections which may have led to councillors deciding the application and possibly refusing it. The Council says residents had other ways of recording objections and on the balance of probabilities it is likely it would have reached the same decision. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault, but the fault did not cause any significant injustice or result in a different decision.

Summary: Mr C complains about the Council’s decision making process in relation to his planning application which meant the Planning Committee did not have all the material facts when reaching its decision and he was put to unnecessary time, trouble and expense in making an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The Ombudsman has ended his investigation as Mr C has used his right of appeal.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development next to her home in 2017 has caused her home to flood. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint because it is too late. And it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to use her right of redress either through an insurance claim to the Council or in the court. The Ombudsman cannot decide liability, this is the role of the courts.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Planning Committee was provided with incorrect information about the consultee comments from the Police on a proposed residential development. This is because the alleged fault is unlikely to have affected the outcome of the planning application.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to protect his privacy from the development behind his home. The planning enforcement process is ongoing, and because of this we cannot complete an investigation. We have ended our investigation, but Mr X can come back to us if he remains unhappy when the planning enforcement process has ended.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for their neighbour’s development. This is because the injustice they claim is not the direct result of the Council’s actions. We do not propose to investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement action as it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: Mr X and Mrs X complained the Council has failed to protect their privacy from the development behind their home. The planning enforcement process is ongoing, and because of this we cannot complete an investigation. We ended our investigation, but Mr X and Mrs X can come back to us if they remain unhappy when the planning enforcement process has ended.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to protect his privacy from the development behind his home. The planning enforcement process is ongoing, and because of this we cannot complete an investigation. We ended our investigation, but Mr X can come back to us if he remains unhappy when the planning enforcement process has ended.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to protect her privacy from the development behind her home. The planning enforcement process is ongoing, and because of this we cannot complete an investigation. We ended our investigation, but Mrs X can come back to us if she remains unhappy when the planning enforcement process has ended.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to protect his privacy from the development behind his home. The planning enforcement process is ongoing, and because of this we cannot complete an investigation. We ended our investigation, but Mr X can come back to us if he remains unhappy when the planning enforcement process has ended.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council resolving to grant planning permission for a large residential development. This is because the complainant has not yet suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the alleged fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s responses to his correspondence about his refused planning application. The issue is not sufficiently separable and there is nothing to be gained from looking at the issue in isolation. The substantive issue concerns the Council’s decision to refuse the application and Mr X has appealed against this.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr C’s complaint about the way it dealt with planning applications from a neighbour for an extension. The planning officer failed to properly consider a material planning consideration Mr C raised about the difference in height between the internal floor levels and the external ground level and the impact this would have on his amenities. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council which we could say wrongly affected its decision.

Summary: Mr B says the Council has failed to take enforcement action in respect of the untidy condition of a farm adjoining his property and the storage of items which he considers to be Council waste and fly-tipped items. The Ombudsman is satisfied the Council has properly investigated Mr B’s concerns. In the absence of fault, the Ombudsman does not question the Council’s decision that there are no grounds to justify enforcement action.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has allowed his neighbour to significantly increase land levels to create a patio and path. Mr B says his property is now at risk of flooding. We find the Council’s decisions to grant planning permission and later to not take enforcement action were not affected by fault. This means we cannot say the Council’s decisions were right or wrong. We have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not taken planning enforcement action against a neighbouring developer. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and the planning permissions are out of time or made by a Planning Inspector.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council dealt with a ‘prior approval’ application for a change of use of an agricultural building. It is unlikely he would find fault by the Council caused the complainant significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has failed to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour who has failed to complete building work. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause him significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has considered a planning application for a barn conversion near him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs D complains that the Council did not properly investigate her complaint about an alleged change of use of a neighbouring site in 2012. She says the Council should have identified a breach of planning control and required an application for planning permission. As a result, she lost the opportunity to object to the change in use of the land. The Ombudsman has not found fault in the way the Council decided to end its enforcement investigation in 2012.

Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control at a development close to his home. I have completed my investigation on the basis that there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision granting prior approval for change of use of agricultural outbuildings to homes. The Ombudsman will not investigate because we do not consider the alleged faults by the Council have caused her a significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications for development on her road. This is because the Council properly considered the impact of the development and it is unlikely we would find fault affecting its decision.

Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to properly consider his neighbour’s planning application for an outbuilding. He says that the Council’s planning committee should have considered it, and that it significantly affected his privacy. The Ombudsman considers that there is fault by the Council for which it has offered a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the failure to take enforcement action to protect woodland and nature sites. The Council failed to ensure the developer implemented the planting scheme at the appropriate time and delayed in determining a retrospective planning application. It has agreed to take action to resolve these matters.

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

Summary: Mr D complains about planning permission the Council granted for a development next to his home. The Council delayed replying to Mr D’s complaint. It has already apologised, which is a suitable remedy. There was no fault in the way the Council determined the planning application.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B consider that the Lake District National Park Authority was wrong to approve plans to use tarmac to resurface a path running through an ecologically sensitive river gorge. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way that the Authority has reached its decision to approve the application, so we cannot question the merits of that decision.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to update plans for a new property next to their own. They say the raised floor level that resulted and the Council’s failure to enforce against a planning breach has caused their property to be overlooked and put it at risk of flooding. While the Council failed to update the plans, for which it has apologised, this did not cause the injustice of which Mr and Mrs X complain.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council breached privacy law about her objection to a neighbour’s planning application. She also says the Council failed to properly consider her amenity when considering the planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office. Further, there is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way the planning application was considered.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action regarding a property contract. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and there is a private legal remedy.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action against a developer for creating a road of too narrow a width. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the service of a Temporary Stop Notice on him by the Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he has appealed to a Planning Inspector against an enforcement notice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly allowed amendments to a section 106 agreement. He says this means the land near his property is more likely to be developed. It was the original planning decision in 2015 that made it most likely the land would be developed. Mr X has not suffered a significant enough injustice, as a result of the decision to amend the section 106 agreement, to warrant further investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of and decision on a planning permission for a new house near his property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision not to notify Mr X of the application, or in its assessment of the planning harm caused to his property by the new development. The Council used its professional judgement to determine the development would not cause sufficient planning harm to warrant refusal. That is a professional judgement decision the Council was entitled to make.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault affecting the decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of three planning applications he submitted in 2018 and 2019. Mr X had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate when each application was rejected, so we will not investigate this complaint.

Summary: The complainant says the Council has agreed changes to a road junction layout previously approved by the District Council in a planning permission. The Council says it has discussed proposals but has not reached a final view. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because he cannot investigate how a council has consider proposals put to it until the Council makes a final decision.

Summary: Mr D complains the Council’s approval of a housing development near his home has caused flooding problems in the gardens of his and other houses nearby. We find no fault in how the Council discharged a planning condition approving drainage for the development. Nor in how it later responded to contacts from Mr D and others who found water pooling in their gardens. However, the Council is at fault for poor communications with Mr D causing him unnecessary frustration. The Council has agreed a remedy for this injustice explained at the end of this statement.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action about a house on land next to his home. Mr X believes the new building will affect his privacy and the Council has failed to protect his amenity. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision not to take planning enforcement action.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council granted a license for a temporary access to land next to their house. They say the access has been in place for two years and will remain indefinitely so cannot be temporary. They say the access is not in line with planning consent for the land. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s granting of a license.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a building regulations completion certificate. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Ms Q and Mr X would like.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to act on his report of a breach of planning control and refuses to consider his complaint about this. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate the Council’s response to a complaint that it illegally demolished the complainant’s property. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted the Ombudsman within 12 months of becoming aware of the matters he was complaining to the Council about, and there are insufficient grounds to consider the Council’s subsequent complaint response in isolation.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has granted planning permission for an extension at a neighbouring property based on inaccurate plans. Mrs X states the actual relationship between her property and her neighbour’s impacts negatively on her privacy. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning application.

Summary: We find fault in the way the Council recorded information on a planning record, which caused confusion to the complainant. The Council otherwise validated and then considered the application in line with proper processes. The Council has agreed to apologise to the complainant for its faults and to improve its record-keeping.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed in determining his rental client Mrs Y’s planning application. Mrs Y had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination of her application. Any loss of rental income Mr X claims is against Mrs Y, not the Council. The Ombudsman would not seek more for Mr X than the Council has already offered to Mr X as a remedy. There is nothing more an Ombudsman investigation would achieve for Mr X, so is not warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning applications. This is because of his rights of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement action. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr and Mrs X injustice.