Summary: Miss B complains that the Council was wrong to investigate her for alleged fly-tipping and a breach of covenant / planning control. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the Council investigating the alleged fly-tipping, though it should tell Miss B if it plans to take further action. The Council was wrong to investigate the construction of a boundary fence as a breach of covenant, because the Council was not a party to this agreement. It should make a payment for Miss B’s associated legal costs and for her time and trouble and distress. However, if Miss B disagrees with the Council issuing a planning enforcement notice in respect of the fence, she can appeal to the Secretary of State.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to handle properly two planning applications for a development at her block of flats. The first application is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction due to a court decision and the complaint being received late. There is no injustice arising from the second application because the Council refused planning permission.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a footpath and cycleway. We have not investigated this complaint further, because Mr X was not caused a significant injustice by the Council’s decision and we do not have the power to deliver the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s response to his planning enforcement query. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decisions.

Summary: Mr Y complained the Council relied on inaccurate information when granting a planning application for two new neighbouring properties and so failed to properly consider the loss of light to his property. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr B complains that there was fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission to extend the house to the rear of his own. 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: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s house extension. There was fault in the way the Council made its decision, which it has already taken satisfactory action to remedy.

Summary: Mr B complains about a series of decisions taken by the Council when approving a development of flats next to his home. We do not uphold the complaint finding no or insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr B.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the enforcement action the Council took over breaches of planning control and encroachment. There was no fault in the way Council concluded its enforcement investigation. I have not investigated the Council’s decision not to act on alleged encroachment.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for her neighbour’s extension. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application to plant flowerbeds on land used for vehicular access to his home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of an application for a housing development. There is no injustice because the Council has not yet granted planning permission and continues to assess the matters which concern Ms X.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the way the Council carried out enforcement action over a breach of planning control at a site near to his business. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so has completed his investigation.

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 affecting its decision.

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 will not investigate this complaint about the Council concluding it could not take enforcement action against a gazebo erected by the complainant’s neighbour. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a developer’s failure to comply with a planning condition. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the injustice relates to ownership of land which is not affected by the grant of planning permission. Part of the complaint is out of time and part is a private matter.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has refused to take enforcement action regarding a garage and neighbouring development, has slandered him, and has failed to deal properly with his freedom of information request. There is no injustice and most of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction being made late.

Summary: Mr X complains about planning permission granted for a large development of dwellings near him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time as planning permission was granted in 2015.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council’s Building Control Inspector considered his Building Regulations application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the law does not hold the Council responsible for any financial loss caused by its Building Control Inspectors and he will have a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector against any enforcement action.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s unreasonable delay in determining his 2017 planning application for a housing development. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mr X has a right of appeal to the planning inspector against the recent refusal and had one for delay in the earlier period.

Summary: The Council was at fault in the way in which officers’ delegated report assessed a planning application by Ms W’s neighbours to extend their property. There was also some fault through delay in investigating Ms W’s reports of unauthorised tree works. Ms W did not suffer significant injustice. But I have asked the Council to make her a written apology, and to let me know what it has done to try to improve report writing.

Summary: Mrs X complains about planning decisions made by the Council concerning her neighbours. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application for a proposed residential development near his house. The Council refused the application. There is no significant injustice caused to Mr X by that decision. The applicant has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, which can look at the application afresh. Mr X may make his representations to the Inspector during the appeal. The Ombudsman cannot be involved in that appeal process and has no powers to intervene by investigating now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to taken enforcement action for a breach of planning control which is on land next to a footpath he uses. The Council has explained its actions and has not caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision not to take action to remove the unauthorised development.