Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to waive a requirement of a section 106 agreement, in respect to the sale of a property. There was also no fault in its decision the same requirement had been met in respect to the sale of another property. The Ombudsman has therefore completed his investigation.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against a business parking vehicles outside his property. However, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council consulted him about development of a piece of land. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council granted planning permission for an extension to the complainant’s neighbour’s home. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council. Any damage to the complainant’s property caused in the construction of the extension is a private matter and not something the Ombudsman can consider.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council investigated a possible breach of planning control. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused injustice.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about various aspects of the process followed by the Council when it granted planning permission for the development of a nearby property. The Ombudsman does not uphold the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Resident X and six other residents complained the Council delayed and failed to take appropriate enforcement action for breaches of planning control on the occupiers of four plots of land near their homes. The Council was not at fault for how it carried out its enforcement investigation. It was at fault for failing to adequately communicate timescales and decisions to the complaints. It will apologise to Resident X and the six other residents for the uncertainty and time and trouble it caused.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve housing development on land next to their home. They say the development will restrict wheelchair access to the rear of their home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to allow a development in front of her home which will block her view and affect its value. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council’s Highways department provided inaccurate information to the planning department of the District Council, which then granted planning permission for development near to her home. The Ombudsman finds that there are no grounds to continue investigation of this complaint, as the planning permission has now been quashed. Mrs B has not therefore been caused significant injustice by the actions complained of.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to charge her for a Community Infrastructure Levy payment 6 years after it granted planning permission for a new property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has handled amendments to conditions on a planning permission, or the way it responded to the subsequent complaint. This is because the personal injustice arising from the alleged faults is not significant enough to justify the Ombudsman’s continued involvement.

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 decision to grant planning permission to a dormer roof addition on a nearby property. The Council should not have lost Mr X’s objections to the plans. But the Council considered the matters his objections raised. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its consideration of and decision on the application to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

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.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused his planning application and later granted planning permission for a third party to develop the site. The injustice Mr X claims lies in the refusal of his planning application and he has appealed against the Council’s decision to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: Mr X complains about the actions of the Council since 2011 in respect of planning enforcement relating to development of the pub next door to him. He says the Council has failed to act. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault in this case. The Council cannot take enforcement action for older parts of the development because of the time that has passed. Newer aspects remain under investigation, but the Council is entitled to consider it is not currently expedient to take formal enforcement action.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action about unauthorised development by his neighbour. We found the Council’s decision not to take action was flawed. We recommended the decision was reviewed and the Council paid Mr X £250.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving the removal of a condition from a planning permission. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application to remove the condition.

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 suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the alleged fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a residential development next to the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not consider all relevant information when making a planning decision. We have found fault with the Council for failing to publish or consider the information. We do not consider this caused an injustice to Mr X as it would be unlikely the decision would be different.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because the issue at the heart of the complaint concerns the merits of the Council’s view on the application and if Mr X wished to challenge this it would have been reasonable for him to ask the Council to determine the application and appeal against its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr Y’s complaint, made on behalf of his client Mr X, about the Council’s consideration and refusal of Mr X’s planning application. Planning applicants have formal rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Mr X has used that appeal. The Ombudsman cannot investigate where someone has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: We have not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to take effective enforcement action over his neighbours’ unauthorised development. It is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different outcome. We cannot investigate the Council’s handling of a retrospective planning application as Mr X has taken court action against the Council. We cannot investigate issues Mr X has had with his neighbour during the build because these are not due to a Council function.

Summary: Mr X complained that, following its approval of an extension to a retail development, the Council failed to enforce a minimum width of footpath of 1.5 metres. The developer has since applied to alter its site entrance and, if approved, this will resolve the problem. Therefore, I have discontinued this investigation.

Summary: Miss B complained that legal and survey fees charged by the Council were excessive. We found the Council was at fault for not providing an estimate of the costs at an earlier stage in the process given the significant increase and for charging her for the officer time involved in responding to her complaint. The Council has reviewed and reduced the costs.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to an email about a planning matter. This is because the injustice arising from the delay is not so significant as to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the matter further.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for his former property. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.