Summary: Mr G complains the Council failed to consult with Sport England, before approving a planning application for development next to the home ground of a cricket club he represents. This meant the development was constructed without measures to mitigate the risk of damage from cricket balls.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council granted planning permission for a new development without properly considering the relevant issues. However, Ms X’s property does not adjoin the site and there is insufficient personal injustice to her for the Ombudsman to investigate further.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It did not make sure that the Member agreed that the planning application should be decided by officers. It would have been best practice for the Council to keep contemporaneous notes of pre-application advice. However, there was no fault in how the Council came to the decision itself however and so the Council’s shortcomings are unlikely to have altered the outcome of the planning application. The Council has agreed to remind its staff of the guidance around delegated decisions.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to update the planning enforcement register as he believes the enforcement notice he received is no longer valid. From the evidence provided, the Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision not to update the planning enforcement register.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled a planning application near her property. She said this had a negative impact on her property and others in the vicinity. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. It is outside his jurisdiction as the complainant had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. And there is insufficient injustice resulting from failures in the complaints procedure which warrants our involvement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate alleges breaches of the Building Regulations. The developer has appointed an approved inspector to oversee the work and while their initial notice remains in force the Council cannot take action. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the approved inspector so it is unlikely we could achieve anything for Mrs X by investigating her complaint now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council delaying 2 months in publishing, on its planning portal website, an officer report on a planning application. The Council has not caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for development near Mr X’s home.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for development near Mr X’s home.

Summary: The Council took too long to decide a planning application. This meant that Mr B suffered a loss of privacy for longer than necessary from his neighbour’s new extension. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and pay him £500 in recognition of the impact on him. There was no fault in how the Council decided the application or in the enforcement action it took when the neighbour breached the planning permission.

Summary: Mr X complains about highways and parking issues which have arisen from a planning permission for a new school. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.

Summary: The Council is at fault in how it investigated Mr X’s complaint about a breach of condition at a development site adjacent to his property. The Council’s communication with Mr X was also poor. The faults by the Council caused frustration and put Mr X to avoidable time and trouble which the Council has agreed to remedy by making a payment of £150 to him.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with him in relation to his listed building consent application. The planning and listed building decision-making process is ongoing. It is too soon for us to investigate this complaint.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to consult her about a planning application or properly consider the impact it would have on her. The Council was at fault because it did not consult Ms X before it made its decision. We cannot show the fault made any difference to the outcome, but the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and take action to avoid reoccurrence.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of two planning applications at a site adjacent to the complainant’s business. The alleged faults by the Council have not directly caused the complainant an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council ignored its planning policies and previous reasons for refusal when granting planning permission for a residential development. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: Mr C complains about how the Council considered matters relating a development close to his property. However, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered these matters.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to approve an extension on a neighbouring site and then allow amendments by approving a further planning application. From the evidence seen, the Ombudsman finds some fault in how the case officer drafted the report, but this has not caused Ms X injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with an enforcement matter at a nearby business. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about decisions that have been the subject of appeals to the Planning Inspector and cannot investigate a complaint about the commencement of court proceedings.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr S’s complaint of the Council failing to properly check the plans sent by a neighbour for an extension. The errors on the plans were not significant or obvious. There was no fault on his complaint about the Council deciding not to take enforcement action for 2 breaches. These were likely to get consent if approval was sought and the Council had discretion to make this decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve anything for Mr X at present.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain that the Council unreasonably granted planning permission for a development next to their home which would encroach on their land. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the way the Council treated her and her husband while they were trying to save a derelict listed building. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mrs B to use her right of appeal to the Planning Inspector if she wished to challenge the Council’s decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development close to his home. This is because the planning application was refused. The alleged fault has not therefore caused any significant personal injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the loss of public rights of way and open spaces as part of the regeneration of South Kilburn. This is because the complainant has not identified any specific faults in the delivery of the project within the last year or so, and we would not normally consider the Council’s associated complaints process in isolation.

Summary: Ms X complained about issues relating to a planning application for housing development next to her home. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for failing to respond to all her complaints, failing to be clear about its enforcement approach and failing to inform her of the outcome of its enforcement investigation. The Council has agreed to pay Ms X £150 to acknowledge the avoidable frustration caused by the Council’s faults.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to notify her of a planning application in 2015 and failed to consider the effect on her residential amenity. While the failure to notify is fault, the outcome of the planning application would not have been any different even if Mrs X had submitted objections on the grounds of overlooking and loss of privacy. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not taken planning enforcement action against his neighbour for his change of use to a holiday let. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council will not take enforcement action over a raised platform built by a neighbour. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms 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: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has refused to take action against her neighbour for development which impacts on her privacy. This is because the development is permitted by legislation and the Council cannot stop it. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mrs X injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains of failure by the Council to take planning enforcement action after a developer raised the ground level at a property. However, Mr X does not live next door to the property, so there is no injustice to him.