Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because, the matter is out of time, with no evidence of fault causing significant injustice and is, more suitably, a matter for the Police.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council issued a building control completion certificate in 2003 for an industrial unit his company bought shortly after. He says the building had a flaw that led to cracking after a storm in 2017, for which the company has been refused an insurance claim. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: Mr F complains about decisions taken by the Council which have resulted in it approving an outbuilding in his neighbour’s garden. We uphold the complaint finding fault in how the Council engaged with Mr F during its consideration of the development. We find although the outcome to the development would not be different, this put Mr F to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has agreed action to remedy this injustice, set out at the end of this statement.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Ms B’s complaint about the Council failing to promptly investigate her report of a failure to comply with a planning condition. The Council failed to show it properly considered whether to use its discretionary enforcement power for a failure to provide sound insulation testing. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. It was not fault for refusing to act on other parts of the condition or her report of building regulation breaches.

Summary: Miss C complained the Council did not consider properly her planning application as it did not identify her agent had submitted revised plans with a larger footprint. Miss C says she unintentionally committed a breach of planning control and suffered unexpected delay and associated costs. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council but considers the actions it has already taken are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mr X complains about unreasonable delay before the Council issued a regularisation certificate for building works at his home. There was unreasonable delay by the Council. The Council agreed a financial remedy to account for the unnecessary time and trouble Mr X was put to in pursuing matters with the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed providing pre-application advice, failed to conduct a site meeting and the advice it did provide included incorrect details. The Council acknowledges there was delay in the pre-application advice process. It was at fault for not conducting a meeting as required by its published procedure and the advice included incorrect information about dormer windows. A remedy for the injustice suffered as a result of these faults is agreed.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s consideration of a legal agreement as part of a planning application for a development of housing. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to consult him about a neighbour’s dropped kerb application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing him injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because he has appealed against its decision to refuse the application.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint as we have not seen evidence of fault in the process the Council followed when making its decision. And it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mr H’s complaint about it wrongly refusing to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour who installed children’s climbing and play equipment close to the joint boundary. The Council visited the site, took photographs, and considered the courts’ approach to assessing whether this was a development for planning control purposes.

Summary: Mr and Ms X complain about planning permission granted by the Council and its enforcement. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because part of the complaint is out of time and there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council seeking an affordable housing contribution in relation to the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant did not contact the Ombudsman within 12 months of becoming aware of the alleged fault, and there are insufficient grounds to exercise discretion to consider the matter now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions to dispose of five social housing units. The complainant has not suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the disposal of the units.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a planning matter. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice and if Mr X was unhappy with the time taken to decide his application it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of her application for planning permission. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his three 2019 planning applications. Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate about one refused application, which takes any complaint about that application outside jurisdiction. Mr X had rights of appeal against the Council’s refusal of the other two applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate any complaints about those applications because it was reasonable for Mr X to have used his appeal rights.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to consider properly a planning application for a general purpose storage building near his property. Mr C says he will suffer from an unacceptable development in an area of outstanding natural beauty which will also impact on his outlook. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision.

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to consider the impact on him and his neighbours when considering an application for a certificate of lawfulness of use when it granted the certificate. The change of use the complainant says has led to anti-social behaviour, loss of amenity and a devaluation of his home. The Council says it considered the application correctly and the Police have taken the lead in dealing with the anti-social behaviour such as criminal damage and threats of violence. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. The complaint is late, and we are unlikely to achieve the outcome he wants. Mr Q may go to the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding his freedom of information request.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a site adjacent to her property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence that Ms B has been caused injustice as a result of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X says the Council granted planning permission for a neighbouring development without taking account of the development’s impact on daylight into her property. There was fault by the Council because the planning officer’s report does not show how it considered Mrs X’s objection. This creates an uncertainty about the outcome. However, the Ombudsman closed this complaint because this service cannot provide the outcome Mrs X wants.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider relevant planning matters when granting outline planning permission for a development. He says this will lead to unacceptable overlooking of his garden and damage to the local ecology. The Council considered those matters relevant at this early stage, with the rest left for later, so there was no fault. However, the Council failed to refer Mr X to the Ombudsman when it responded to his complaint. It will make sure it does this in future.

Summary: Mr X represents a group of residents. He complains the Council’s failures to include all relevant reasons for refusing a planning application in 2014 led to the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to allow a more recent appeal. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is too late. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s Local Plan. This is because the Planning Inspector is better placed to consider the matters complained of.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council failed to ensure developers complied with a legal agreement to provide play areas for the housing estate where she lives with her young children. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault in failing to enforce the agreement. However, there were delays and communication failings by the Council and these caused injustice for Ms B. To remedy this the Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms B and to keep her updated with progress of this matter.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for a large residential development. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council refused the planning application and it is now to be considered by a Planning Inspector. There is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave incorrect pre-application advice. This led to him submitting a planning application that had no chance of being approved. We have found fault with the Council for issuing poor advice. This resulted in Mr X proceeding with an application and paying architect fees. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X the value of the architect fees to remedy his injustice.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council wrongly granted planning permission for an extension to a neighbouring property in 2018. He also says the Council delayed replying to his initial complaint. The Ombudsman has found the Council delayed with its complaint response but there is no outstanding injustice to Mr C. There is no fault in the planning application process. As such the Ombudsman has completed the investigation and upheld the complaint because of the Council’s delay.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s development proposals for her area which it said had been removed from the Strategic Growth Plan. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to notify the complainant about her neighbour’s planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.