Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a development near his home. Mr X says the Council caused him to become seriously ill and he would like the building to be demolished. We cannot quash planning permissions or determine liability for an injury to health: only the courts can provide these remedies. We did not investigate further because we are unlikely to find fault or reach a different or a meaningful outcome for Mr X.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider the impact on bats, climate change or carbon emissions when resolving to grant planning permission for a residential development. This is because the complainant has not yet suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the alleged fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to his correspondence and to advise him about a planning proposal. The Council has apologised to Mr X and this provides a suitable remedy for his complaint.

Summary: Mr B says the Council, in granting planning permission for a development, failed to consider its policies or the impact on his amenity. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the planning application.

Summary: Ms B complains about the way the Council carried out an enforcement investigation of planning breach at her property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms B to warrant an investigation.

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 would find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a planning application. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused any significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council served four planning enforcement notices relating to his development. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X had the right to appeal the notices to the Planning Inspectorate. It was reasonable for him to use those rights.

Cambridge City Council (19 002 891)

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Miss D’s complaint of Council advice about a neighbour connecting a waste pipe to her downpipe. It failed to fully explain what redirecting it internally might involve. This caused no significant injustice. The Council followed procedure when it investigated her disconnection of the pipe. The Council failed to explain the information it gave her was not conclusive. This caused no significant injustice. It failed to follow the complaints procedure. The agreed action remedies the avoidable injustice caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr T’s complaint about it failing to notify him of his neighbour’s planning application for consent for a double garage built. This caused no injustice to Mr T as an enforcement officer told him about the application, he made representations, and the planning officer referred to, and considered them, in the report.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to follow planning procedure when is decided to grant planning permission for a development close to a Special Protection Area. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as Mr X has not suffered significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the planning enforcement action the Council took regarding activities at Mr Q’s airfield. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has not taken enforcement action against his neighbour Mr Y due to the height of their fence. The Council considers the fence is not high enough to be a breach of Mr Y’s permitted development rights. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the process it followed to make its decision. The Ombudsman cannot criticise a properly made professional judgement decision by a council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the grant of planning permission for a property next to his second home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. The matter is also out of time.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to make his neighbour lower the height of decking in his garden. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint as we have not seen evidence of fault in process the Council followed before making its decision.