Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way in which it investigated Ms Y’s reports of a breach of planning controls in relation to her neighbours’ outbuilding. Nor was it significantly at fault in the way in which it responded to her complaints about its decision that there was no breach.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of several planning applications between 2015 and 2018. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application for an extension at the property next to his home. There was fault in the Council’s analysis of the impact of the development on Mr B’s property but it did not alter the decision made. The Council will apologise to Mr B

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not dealt properly with a planning application for the change of use of a commercial property next to his home and alleged breach of licencing conditions. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: A local interest group complained the decision notice the Council issued on a hedgerow removal application did not reflect the decision that the planning committee took on the application. We upheld the complaint. The Council were at fault and the decision notice did not reflect the Committee’s decision. Part of the officer’s recommendation was not addressed by Committee and both the Committee and Officers failed to follow relevant guidance. The Council’s decision making was unclear as a result. However, we found, on balance, the outcome was unlikely to be different. We did not reach a view on other issues the group raised about the case officers report and actions as they did not lead to injustice. The Council agreed to review its practices as a result of the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains the decision notice the Council issued on a hedgerow removal application did not reflect the decision that the planning committee took on the application. We upheld the complaint. The Council were at fault and the decision notice did not reflect the Committee’s decision. Part of the officer’s recommendation was not addressed by Committee and both the Committee and Officers failed to follow relevant guidance. The Council’s decision making was unclear as a result. However, we found, on balance, the outcome was unlikely to be different. The Council agreed to apologise and review its practices.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about difficulties accessing objections to a planning application on the Council’s website, and about the Council’s response to unauthorised works to protected trees. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the premature tree works, and the complainant has not suffered a significant injustice as a result of the problems she encountered with the Council’s website.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the pre-application advice the Council gave the complainant. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault or suggest a further remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning and enforcement matters related to a new dwelling near the complainant’s home. This is because the complainant has not suffered a significant personal injustice as a direct result of the alleged fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council granted planning permission for an industrial development which he claims will be harmful to health. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to him from the planning decision as the health issues are considered separately by the Environment Agency as part of a licence application.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not extended parking restrictions on a road junction. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council’s advice about a wall of a church is inconsistent with other expert advice received. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no significant personal injustice caused by the alleged fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s failure to correct a Design and Access Statement prevented him from challenging a planning proposal effectively. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council fails to act against breaches of planning control which she says have damaged the local environment. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as Mrs X has not suffered any personal injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s planning department. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council has not taken adequate action about a development next to her house. Mrs B says the development causes a loss of privacy. She is also concerned about the safety of her property and the risk from asbestos. The Ombudsman finds fault with how the Council considered Mrs B’s privacy and how it responded to the demolition of an existing building.

Summary: Mr F complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for his neighbour’s extension. There was fault by the Council. It has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs F.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning case. This is because there is no sign of substantive fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. In addition we could not achieve a different outcome for the complainant.

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 Mrs Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. The complaint is late and, in any event, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs Q wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to amend an approved foul water drainage scheme following advice from the relevant statutory undertaker. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce a planning condition relating to noise from a wind farm. As a result, he says he and his family have suffered from low frequency noise since the wind farm began operating. The Council was not at fault. It established the noise from the wind farm was within the limits set out in the planning condition.

Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain the Council has failed to process their neighbours planning application correctly. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen any evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the process leading to the Council’s decisions to refuse his planning applications. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint as he has used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s decisions.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission for a proposal which contravenes its’ own policy. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as he does not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice. Nor can we achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to consider the privacy of future occupiers when it granted planning permission for play equipment close to new build properties. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as Mrs X has used a different route to achieve the relocation of the play equipment. Therefore, there is no outstanding personal injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council is discriminating against him by refusing to allow him to install a dropped kerb outside his home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for a residential development in his village. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Even if there has been fault, the Ombudsman should not investigate because the development will not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice, and he cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for a residential development in her village. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The Ombudsman should also not investigate because the development will not cause Mrs X a significant personal injustice. Mrs X wants the Council to re-run the planning decision-making process, which is an outcome the Ombudsman cannot achieve.

Summary: Mr X complains that his neighbour damaged his property because of wrong advice by the Council’s Building Inspector. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because we could not achieve a remedy from the Council and there is a private remedy.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application and its failure to take action over unsafe building works. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.