Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant permission to her neighbour to develop their property. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaints about damage caused to her property by her neighbour’s development works because they are private civil matters.

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 by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of some property owners and occupiers about the way the Council has handled regeneration plans for East Quay. She says they did not have an opportunity to give their views, and the limited employment type in terms of business use will mean they will struggle to rent out their spaces. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the Council’s plans because they have been approved by the Planning Inspector. For this reason, the Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not notify him about a planning application to develop an all-weather sports pitch on a site near his house. The Ombudsman found no fault in the decision not to notify Mr X, nor in the decisions it reached about his complaints about the operation of the new pitch. However, there is evidence it failed to update him properly about one of his complaints. This caused frustration, but the apology the Council has already given is a satisfactory remedy for this.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not correctly investigate his complaint about the planning department. He says the Council’s failure has resulted in him experiencing poor health, financial loss and damage to his personal status. We will not investigate further because we cannot investigate the substantive matter related to Mr X’s planning application as it happened over 12 months ago. Therefore, we will not investigate the peripheral matter regarding the Council’s complaint process.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr E’s complaint about the Council failing to properly consider a full planning application it granted consent. The Council properly considered the application. His complaint about its handling of an earlier application for outline consent was not investigated because it was late.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to consider the impact on her privacy and amenity when it approved a property with a finished floor level two metres above her property. It was always clear the properties near Mrs X’s would be built at a higher level. The Council did consider this when determining the application. There is no evidence of fault in the process leading to the decision about the height of the finished floor levels and so there is no basis to criticise it.

Summary: Mr and Mrs Z complain the Council failed to consider the impact on their privacy and amenity when it approved a property with a finished floor level two metres above their property. It was always clear the properties near Mr and Mrs Z’s would be built at a higher level. The Council did consider this when determining the application. There is no evidence of fault in the process leading to the decision about the height of the finished floor levels and so there is no basis to criticise it.

Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to consider the impact on her privacy and amenity when it approved a property with a finished floor level two metres above her property. It was always clear the properties near Mrs Y’s would be built at a higher level. The Council did consider this when determining the application. There is no evidence of fault in the process leading to the decision about the height of the finished floor levels and so there is no basis to criticise it.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed in determining planning applications and failed to take effective enforcement action in respect of an unauthorised music venue. Mr X knew about the issues more than 12 months before he complained to the Ombudsman and there is no basis to exercise discretion to now investigate his complaint. Mr X’s complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision to order him to move his boundary fence. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s negligence caused him to lose the buyer for his home. He also says the Council failed to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act. The ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as he cannot determine liability for negligence. Mr X can ask the Information Commissioner to consider his complaint about access to information.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement action against a business that operates on land opposite his home. He says noise from business operations and vehicle deliveries disturbs his amenity. We did not investigate this complaint further because the Council’s planning decisions have been superseded by a recent decision by the Planning Inspectorate, which is not a body we have power to investigate.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application that affected their privacy. There was fault in the way the Council made its decision, which it should remedy. Mr and Mrs X may come back to us if the Council fails to secure the planning controls it says are necessary to properly protect their privacy.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a housing development on land near his home, which he says affects his privacy. The complaint was brought to us outside our 12-month time limit and there is no good reason to investigate this part of his complaint now. Mr X also says he complained about loud noise to the Council’s regulatory service but got no response. The Council accepts it failed to respond to Mr X and did not investigate his concerns. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for failing to respond to his service request.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for housing development on land near his home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s approval of a planning application for the conversion of a house into flats in his area. Mr X said he was also complaining about several other approved planning applications which he said the Council granted as a result of maladministration. I discontinued this investigation because the alleged faults did not cause Mr X or others a significant personal injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms D’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion and now investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his request to extend a dropped kerb. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of planning matters in relation to his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because past events fall outside our jurisdiction and an investigation of recent events would be unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his planning application. This is because Mr X has appealed against the decision to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to properly consider all material planning considerations when granting planning permission for a development near his home. This has caused noise and odour nuisance. The Council says it considered all material planning considerations including objections from the complainant when deciding to grant the application. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault when deciding to grant the planning permission.

Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council dealt with his application for building regulations approval and says he spent unnecessary time and trouble and did not receive an acceptable service. The Ombudsman has found some fault in the Council’s communication with Mr B but considers the actions already taken by the Council of agreeing a single point of contact with the additional action of an apology and £50 are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’ complaint about the Council’s actions in listing a property as an asset of community value (ACV) and its refusal of her planning application for a change of use. The complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Ms X had a right of appeal to a tribunal against the ACV listing. She used her right of appeal to the planning inspector.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has approved multiple planning applications for her neighbour despite her objections. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Most of the planning permissions were granted more than 12 months ago so her complaints about these are late. We have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the remaining application and Ms X’s report of a breach of planning control.

Summary: There is no fault in action taken by the Council when it told Mr X to remove two structures from in front of his property. If Mr X disagreed with the Council’s view he could have applied for a Certificate of lawful development or awaited for it to take enforcement action and appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application was not lawful. The Council was at fault for not referring the application to the planning committee. However, there was no injustice to Mr X because I cannot say the outcome would have been different if the committee had considered the application.

Summary: Ms X complains, on behalf of the local residents’ association, about the Council’s decision to give planning permission to extend some residential gardens onto a right of way they are trying to register. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Although it is clear why the residents’ association is unhappy with the result, the decisions themselves were properly taken and so we cannot intervene.