Summary: Mr and Mrs X say the Council failed to take enforcement action on some of their concerns over breaches of planning control at a neighbouring property and falsely claimed enforcement action had been completed in other cases where it took action. There was fault by the Council because of unreasonable delay in taking action. The Council proposed action to resolve the outstanding enforcement matter. It also agreed to a time and trouble payment to Mr and Mrs X.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council decided to prosecute his client over a Tree Preservation Order and has refused to remove a tree preservation order. He also complains about the content of a telephone call between his client and the Council in 2015. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as he cannot investigate matters that have been considered in court. And it is too late to make a complaint about an incident which occurred in 2015.

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council have failed to take enforcement action against her neighbour for putting up a fence which is above the two-metre limit allowed under permitted development regulations. The first part of the complaint relates to a planning application granted several years ago which is outside our 12-month time limit and so we will not investigate this. For those parts of the complaint that are within our time-limit, there was no fault in the way the Council made its decision not to take enforcement action.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council requires the complainant to submit a planning application for a change of use of premises he owns. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in this or in the fee it says the complainant must pay. The complainant will have a right of appeal if the Council takes enforcement action against him.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to adequately publicise a planning application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision he was liable to pay a Community Infrastructure Levy, a year after it decided he was exempt from paying. We cannot investigate this complaint. Mr X had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, and it was reasonable for him to use that right. In any event, we would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council granted planning permission for a development of houses which are too high and affect his amenity. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the grant of planning permission for a building which has allowed for dangerous access on to a highway. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her planning application. This is because her injustice lies in the decision to refuse planning permission and if she disagreed with this it would have been reasonable for her to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a housing development. The development included a new house, which is very close to windows in their home. There was fault in the way the Council made its planning decision, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Summary: Mr X complains about the failure of the Council’s Building Control Inspector to note defects in his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Ombudsman does not consider the Council liable for faults in a property.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr B’s reports of noise from a nearby construction site. But there were failings in the way the Council handled Mr B’s formal complaints about the matter. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council approved the application, but there was a failure to properly publish details of planning condition discharge information, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Summary: Mr X complains the Authority provided the wrong advice on a planning matter causing him to suffer financial loss. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Authority gave advice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action against a cooler unit. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached 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: The Council was at fault in its contact with Miss Y, and in managing her expectations of the Planning Enforcement Team. Although she suffered some stress and annoyance, this fault made no difference to what officers could achieve for her. As the Council has apologised, I have not proposed any further personal remedy. But I have asked the Council to review its protocols relating to enforcement officers’ contact with the public.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint alleging the complainant was denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to present his case before the Council’s planning committee.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council when it decided issues around road safety and drainage as part of a new development. The Council inspected the site several times and consulted government guidance. It properly considered whether the junction is wide enough and has sufficient visibility.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to consult him about his neighbour’s plans to develop their property. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council required an archaeological survey to be done as part of his two residential planning applications. If Mr X disagreed with the survey condition, he had a right of appeal against it to the Planning Inspectorate. There is insufficient injustice caused to Mr X if the Council has not required other local planning applicants to do an archaeological survey. The Council has agreed to reimburse the fee for the survey on the second application which is an outcome the Ombudsman could not have achieved.