Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. The Council’s case report was not accurate and it did not fully consider the impact on Mr B’s amenity. The Council also took too long to deal with Mr B’s complaint. Mr B did not suffer any significant injustice but the Council should apologise for not following its policy and for taking too long to respond to Mr B.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr M’s complaint that it failed to take account of the information he previously sent about starting construction works on site when he applied for pre-application advice. The officer missed this evidence. The Council missed the opportunity to acknowledge this failure sooner than it did. This is fault. It delayed responding to a letter from him for 10 weeks. None of the faults caused Mr M a significant injustice.

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 Council’s decision.

Summary: Mr X complains about the planning permission granted by the Council for a neighbour’s development. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about substandard building work carried out to a property she has recently purchased. This is because the Council had no involvement in inspecting the work or issuing the Building Regulations completion certificate.

Summary: Mr E complains about the Council’s lack of planning enforcement action and lack of updates. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint and has agreed remedies.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application. Mrs X says the new extension will reduce light to windows in her home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the way the Council dealt with a planning application near her home. On the evidence seen, the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to protect him from his neighbour’s extension that was built without planning permission. Mr X believes that his neighbour’s home is now unsafe. There was no fault in the building control decision the Council has made. The planning issues raised in the complaint related to decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate, which is not a body we can investigate.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a residential building in his road. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because Mr B has not suffered any personal injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour’s fence. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint which alleged the Council dodged its responsibilities and avoided issues concerning early deliveries to a local supermarket contrary to a condition attached to the planning permission for the supermarket.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about historical issues regarding the use of adjoining land as the complaint is late. We will not investigate their more recent complaint about the Council’s handling of an enforcement matter as it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to allow the installation of replacement illuminated signage on a pub near his house and the effect of it. He is also unhappy with the steps taken by the Council to resolve the matter. The Ombudsman found no fault in this case. The officers involved at various stages have exercised their professional judgement in coming to decisions Mr X disagrees with. The process they followed however was appropriate in the circumstances and so we cannot intervene.

Summary: The complaint is about the Council’s delay in dealing with a neighbour’s lawful development certificate application. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation, as the complainant has advised the Council is now taking action.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application for a parking bay. The development causes Mr X no significant personal injustice which warrants an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Council wrongly told Ms B her property was curtilage listed. Ms B complains that this meant she applied for planning permission and listed building consent for work to the property which were unnecessary. She says she has incurred costs in carrying out work the Council required because of the listed status. And that building works to the property were limited and altered to meet the requirements of the listed status.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s consideration and approval of drawings detailing the levels and height of the replacement house next to their home. There was fault in the Council’s consideration of the levels plans but this has not altered the decision on the application.

Summary: The Council was at fault in wrongly contradicting information provided by Ms X. The Council should apologise for the unnecessary distress this caused Ms X. However, what happened did not affect the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development near Ms X’s home.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about two planning applications approved by the Council. It is too late to investigate a complaint about the first, which the Council approved in 2016. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in how the Council considered the second application that is likely to have affected the outcome.

Summary: Mr D complains the Authority did not properly consider a planning application for new houses on land next to his property. The Ombudsman has not found fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to consult him on his neighbour’s planning application because it is unlikely we would find fault. We will not investigate his complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s new planning application as the application is not yet decided.

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 affecting its decision.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of planning and environmental health matters relating to a new housing development next to his home. Mr B says the amenity of his home has been affected and he is concerned the Council will repeat its errors. We find the Council was not at fault for the matters Mr B complains about. We have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has failed to ensure compliance with various planning enforcement measures it has taken for planning breaches on land near to his home. He says the continued and increasing unauthorised use and development of the land causes him and his wife and neighbours’ distress. He is also worried the use could increase. There has been some delay by the Council since April 2018 in deciding what further action it should take. The Council should update Mr B about the current position.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action to deal with overlooking to her property. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mrs X injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to consult her about her neighbours planning application and then failed to consider the impact the extension would have on her property. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of her planning application for prior approval to change the use of an agricultural building to a dwelling house. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council and is unlikely to lead to the outcome Ms B seeks.