Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council decided his neighbour’s planning application. He says the case officer’s report had errors, meaning the decision to grant planning permission is unsound. He says he will lose light and space around his home. He also says the environment will be less pleasant. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council did not properly deal with a planning application next to his home. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly publicise a planning application near to his home. He felt there were other procedural issues and the application should have been decided at committee. He also felt there was bias towards the developer. We found the application was dealt with properly and there was no fault in the decision-making process.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of unauthorised building work to her flat which took place prior to her purchase. We could not attribute Miss X’s claimed injustice to the Council’s actions or determine the issue of responsibility for compliance with the Building Regulations.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement action against a blocked public access. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice. Part of the complaint is out of time.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s Complaint about how the Council dealt with and decided a planning application for the development of a neighbouring property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s failure to consult a relevant statutory consultee in connection with a planning application. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in this matter, but that this did not lead to significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X says the Council failed to properly investigate his reports of alleged breaches of planning control at adjacent properties and within the curtilage of his listed home. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault by the Council in how it decided not to take enforcement action. However, he did find the Council took too long to complete its investigation and did not keep Mr X updated. The Council has agreed to apologise and, for this reason, the Ombudsman has ended his consideration of this complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the impact a telecommunication mast might have on her health and amenity because the Council failed to control a prior notification planning application it intended to refuse. The Council accepts it was at fault and has agreed to review its practices and update its records.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because Mr X has appealed against the Council’s enforcement notice to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: The Council allowed Mr X’s neighbour to build a larger extension that it would have if it had considered the impact on Mr X’s property. The Council has offered to pay Mr X £5000 to recognise the impact of the extension on his amenity. This provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application relating to extensions to a residential property. This is because we have already considered some of the issues in the complaint, there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding other matters and, in any case, it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s requirement for the submission of two specialist surveys as part of a planning application he made on behalf of a client. Mr X has not been caused a significant personal injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on a planning application for the extension of a property in her area. There is insufficient injustice caused to Ms X by the matter to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has abused its powers under the Town and Country Planning Act and is racist. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as its planning system did not correctly show that houses had permitted development rights removed. Officers remedied this fault and there was no fault in the enforcement officer’s decision not to take action over unauthorised decking or removal of trees, other than to require replanting.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about its handling of planning enforcement and noise nuisance complaints Ms Y made about the operation of a car wash.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement and noise nuisance complaints Ms X made about the operation of a car wash.

Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s decision on a certificate of lawful existing use application (CLUED) for a business. The planning officer was at fault when he did not reply to an email to explain there would be no further consultation on information supplied by the applicant. This fault did not cause injustice, as there is no legal requirement for the Council to consult on CLUED applications and so no remedy is proposed.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint. The matters it raises are too old, better addressed by a different body, and/or are matters of professional judgement. There is also no evidence of injustice to the complainant which the Ombudsman could seek to remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or its decision to discharge a planning condition. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about advice provided by the Council’s duty planner service. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the lack of information provided by the Council regarding a development of community interest. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council failed to properly consider the impact of a proposed development on his property when it granted planning permission in 2016. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve as, while there was fault by the Council, we cannot conclude, but for the fault, a different outcome would have resulted.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of and decision to grant planning permission for some flats near his property. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in how it dealt with the application, or injustice caused by the planning decision, to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has refused to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour’s windows. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application and its decision to grant permission for the erection of a boundary garden wall which impedes access to her road. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in how dealt with the matter.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council carried out enforcement against a development near his home and how it dealt with a subsequent planning application. The Ombudsman finds some fault in the way the Council handled the planning application but there is no evidence of injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Mr X’s complaint. The Council delayed in opening an enforcement investigation. It also communicated poorly and failed to act on Mr X’s environmental health concerns. This frustrated Mr X and left him unsure how the Council had considered his concerns. The Council will apologise to Mr X, provide a service from its environmental health team and issue reminders to staff about information sharing, the investigation process, and timely communication.

Summary: the Council failed to consult Mr B on a planning application which affects him, failed to visit the site and failed to consider the impact on his amenity when granting planning permission. Those failures prevented Mr B commenting on the planning application, caused him distress and led to him going to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. However, the outcome of the planning application would likely not have been different. In those circumstances the agreement the Council has secured from Mr B’s neighbour to alter some aspects of the development to mitigate any effect on Mr B, an apology and small payment is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to give accurate advice prior to and during his construction of a boundary wall that was later found to be a breach of planning consent. The Ombudsman has found no fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for a development opposite the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council is dealing with a planning application for a large development of houses. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation as the planning application has not yet been determined.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has failed to address his concerns about the loss of privacy to his home as a result of new development it had approved. This is because we could not achieve the outcome Mr B wants.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement against his neighbour. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to grant a planning application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use to a neighbour’s house. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council taking discontinuance action against an advertisement. This is because the complainant has already submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, so the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to notify her of a planning application which affected her as a person with an interest in the land. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice as planning permission does not override any private ownership rights.

Summary: Mr X complains about misleading advice from the Council about his planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and there was a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.