Summary: Mr C complains the Council wrongly discharged and failed to enforce properly conditions attached to a planning permission which meant residents suffered unnecessary noise, dust and safety hazards from construction traffic. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council granted planning permission for an extension at a neighbouring property. Mr B says the Council did not follow the statutory guidance for consultation periods and did not properly consider the impact on amenity. The Ombudsman finds some fault in the way the Council carried out the consultation with neighbours and recorded its consideration but does not consider this caused injustice to Mr B. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s consultation on, or consideration of, a planning application. The separation distance between houses is much greater than the minimum separation distance in the Council’s design guidance and the complainant’s objections were considered by the planning officer.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly issued a Certificate of proposed lawful use for a car park. He says it wrongly determined the site was within the curtilage of the property and failed to properly consider relevant caselaw. There was no fault in how the Council made its decision.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged the Council did not act on alleged breaches of planning conditions at a development close to the complainant’s home.

Summary: Mr X says the Council did not properly consider a development’s impact on his property before it granted planning permission. There was fault by the Council because of incorrect guidance it provides on the process of registering to speak before the planning committee. The Council agreed to review the information it provides to the public on the process.

Summary: Ms X says the Council granted access rights to a service road to a third party in contravention of a covenant she and other homeowners have with the Council. No further action is needed to pursue this complaint because Ms X can use an alternative remedy and it is reasonable to expect her to do so.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to send her a consultation letter about a planning application for two properties being built to the back of her home. That meant she was unable to raise her objections about the properties. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mrs F complains at the Council’s approval of a detached garage in the grounds of a neighbouring house. We find there was fault in procedures followed by the Council, which it recognised. We have completed our investigation as we consider the Council remedied any injustice caused by its fault through giving Mrs F an apology. We do not find the Council should provide any further remedy as we consider it would still have approved the development despite the fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the landscaping scheme for a nearby sports building. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with the landscaping matter, or of sufficient injustice caused to Mr X, to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decisions to refuse his two planning applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there was a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s reporting of Community Levy Infrastructure (CIL) payments. The Ombudsman cannot not investigate the complaint because the injustice claimed by Mr B affects all or most of the people in the Council’s area as so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with a planning application for outline permission to build a new property near his home. There is fault by the Council, but this has not caused Mr X any significant injustice.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land near their home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land near his former home. Mr X says the value of his home was affected by the Council’s decision. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s approval of a planning application under delegated authority. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land near her home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land near their home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land near their home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land near their home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land near their home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr B complains about the misuse of planning powers and public money by the Council in supporting the developments of a local businessman. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the events complained about happened too long ago and the information Mr B has presented does not support his allegations nor has he claimed any personal injustice.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development close to the complainant’s home.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Authority has failed since 2015 to properly deal with firm A’s three planning applications for a plot of land. The firm had or has used its rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for its last two applications from 2016 and 2017. The Ombudsman will not investigate because the firm used its Planning Inspectorate appeal right for the 2017 application, and it was reasonable for the firm to have used that appeal right in response to the 2016 decision.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s Local Plan and the proposed infrastructure in the area. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it affects all or most of the population of the area.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council misled possible objectors about a planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to respond to a complaint he made about a contractual matter. He says its failure to respond meant he had to take legal action to recover fees and expenses he was due. He wants it to investigate his complaint and apologise to him for not responding to his concerns. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because the issues he complains about are out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs D complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action against breaches of planning permission next to her property. The Ombudsman has found was fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and take action without further delay.