Summary: Mr X complained about the Council refusing to require local councillors to explain their voting decisions on planning applications to individual members of the public. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the way the Council dealt with planning applications for a housing development near their home. There was no fault by the Council in how it considered the planning applications.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant permission for a development at a nearby church. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault in its decision-making process, and of a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matter.

Summary: Mr B complains that there was fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission for a new house to the rear of his own. He considers that the Council failed to have proper regard to its own policies and, as a result, his home will be overlooked. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council considered the application, so we cannot question the merits of its decision to grant planning permission.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as he is unlikely to find fault in the way the Council dealt with his complaint that two councillors breached its code of conduct

Summary: The Council was at fault in the way in which it discharged a condition relating to an affordable housing development next to a rental property that Mr A owned. This left him without an effective means of maintaining the rear of his property. The Council was also unclear in response to Mr A’s enquiries about the disposal of surplus land left over from the development. This caused him additional frustration and annoyance. The Council had already arranged for the boundary fence to be moved to enable Mr A to access the rear of his property. It has now further offered to transfer the land, amounting to about 33.5 square metres, to Mr A at nil cost.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed wrongly granted planning permission for his neighbour’s first floor extension. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s Building Control officer signing off the roof of her house extension. The roof was completed 10 years ago. Ms X has been aware of a problem with the roof for over 12 months, so the complaint is late. The primary responsibility for building work rests with those who commission it and those who do the work, not with the Council. There are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint now.

Summary: Mr X complains about the quality of pre planning application advice he received. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he can seek a remedy in the courts.

Summary: Mr X complains for Mr Y. He says the Council failed to tell Mr Y about a neighbour’s planning application. And it wrongly granted planning permission for his neighbour’s first floor extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate as it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly signed off building work as compliant with the Building Regulations. Primary responsibility for substandard work rests with those who commission the work and those who carry it out and we would expect any survey carried out on the property to identify obvious defects. We cannot hold the Council responsible for the faulty building work or recommend it pays the cost of repairs as Ms X would like.

Summary: The Ombudsman will investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly signed off building work as compliant with the Building Regulations. Primary responsibility for substandard work rests with those who commission the work and those who carry it out and we would expect any survey carried out on the property to identify obvious defects. We cannot hold the Council responsible for the faulty building work or recommend it pays the cost of repairs as Ms X would like.

Summary: Mr X complains Council officers failed to provide correct advice and information to the planning sub-committee. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about a notice the Council posted on Mr B’s land stating he did not have planning permission. This is because the Council has already put matters right as far as reasonably possible and the Ombudsman would be unlikely to recommend further action.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council did not notify them of a planning application, did not consider the effect on their residential amenity and did not carry over objections from an earlier application. The Council accepts it did not carry out any advertising for this application which is fault. Changes have been made to the development including the inclusion of a privacy screen which greatly reduces the impact on Mr and Mrs X.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council wrongly allowed a neighbour to cut trees down owned by Ms X. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

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

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council wrongly did not impose a planning condition restricting the opening hours of a bar close to her home. Mrs B says this has removed a potential enforcement option if local residents are caused a noise nuisance. The Council was not at fault for the way it made this decision. This means we cannot say the decision was wrong. We have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider enforcement reports properly and did not consider the impact of a planning application correctly. She also felt the Council was biased in favour of the developer and failed to communicate with her. There was no fault in the Council’s planning decisions. However, its communication with Mrs X was lacking. The Council apologised to Mrs X in its response to her complaint to remedy this fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council not responding to the complainant’s queries about a planning application. He is unlikely to find fault by the Council has caused the complainant significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised he could build a new garage as ‘permitted development’ without the need for planning permission. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of and decision on a planning application to extend a house next to his property. The Council granted the permission in 2016. Mr X viewed the property in late 2018, noted the building works next door, but bought his property in early 2019. The action which connects the Council’s 2016 planning decision to Mr X’s claimed injustice was Mr X’s decision to buy his house in 2018, knowing there was development nearby. The Ombudsman could not therefore say the Council caused Mr X an injustice, and an investigation is not warranted.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the injustice is speculative as the planning application has not yet been determined.