Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly protect bats and require the developer to provide compensation for biodiversity loss when it approved a planning application for a housing estate on land near her home.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to accept and determine a ‘reserved matters’ planning application for a residential development across the road from his house. The Council’s actions do not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his planning application. As a planning applicant, Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s delay in determining the application. Mr X had a further PINS appeal right once the Council refused the application. The appeal was the appropriate formal route for him to follow to challenge the decision and how it was made, and to seek the permission he wants. It was reasonable for Mr X to have used his Planning Inspectorate appeal rights.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because Mr X has exercised his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council did not properly consider its own policies when approving a planning application. They say the Council’s decision led to an increase in the number of HGV’s using a road near their home. This causes problems with noise, pollution and road safety. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council considered the planning application or responded to Mr and Mrs B’s concerns.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint which alleged fault in the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development and its handling of subsequent applications to discharge conditions of the planning permission and vary the permission.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not properly consider its own policies when approving a planning application. She says the Council’s decision led to an increase in the number of HGV’s using a road near her home. This causes problems with noise, pollution and road safety. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council considered the planning application or responded to Mrs B’s concerns.

Summary: Mr X complains about planning permission for a development which would increase HGV traffic. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the complaint is out of time.

Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council considered the impact of a development on local people, wildlife or local highways. I intend to stop my investigation into development outside the settlement boundary and the impact of development on a local footpath as any potential fault has not caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with planning applications to vary access arrangements to residential developments on land next to Mr and Mrs X’s home.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to notify him of a neighbour’s planning application. The Council agreed it should have notified him and has apologised. We do not consider the fault affected the outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his planning application. Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate on the matter. The Ombudsman cannot investigate when someone has used that appeal right. The use of that appeal takes the matter outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s extension. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise its discretion to investigate.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against his neighbour, who he alleges has started a business in a garage behind his home. The Council has investigated his allegations but found no evidence of a change of use. There was no fault in the way the Council carried out its enforcement investigation.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to resolve a breach of planning control by her neighbour. The Ombudsman finds no fault causing significant injustice in how the Council dealt with the breach. However, the Ombudsman has found fault in how the Council handled the complaint.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to respond properly and take effective action in response to his reports about the commercial storage and dealing in scrap at a neighbouring property which he says has a harmful impact on the area’s amenity. The Ombudsman has found delay by the Council but considers the agreed actions of an apology and procedural review are enough to provide a suitable remedy to Mr C.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council was slow to take enforcement action. The matter is now the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. We should not investigate further, as the decision on whether the impact on public amenity is unacceptable, will be made by the Planning Inspectorate, which is a body outside of our remit.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s building control officer gave her incorrect advice, which led to her builder carrying out unauthorised works on a drain owned by the local statutory water undertaker. We ended our investigation because we are unlikely to find fault or recommend a meaningful remedy for Mrs X.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council not pursuing planning enforcement action against an alleged breach of an occupancy condition attached to a dwelling. This is because the alleged fault by the Council has not caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

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

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 he is unlikely to find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused any significant injustice.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman will not Mr X’s complaint about the Council issuing an enforcement notice. I consider it reasonable for him to have exercised his right to appeal to the Planning Inspector at the time the notice was issued.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to take enforcement action regarding a development. The Ombudsman’s decision is that there is no fault by the Council causing injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council is failing to discharge its duties under section 2A of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, as amended. Based on the documentation currently available there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has met its duties under the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about planning permission the Council granted to itself. He is unlikely to find fault in how the Council considered the planning application. Further, the proposed development has not taken place.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Y’s complaints about the Council’s approach to dealing with his client Mr X. We must look at the specific events set out in the complaint and most of these are too late for investigation. While Mr X raises two more recent concerns it is unlikely investigation into these issues would achieve any worthwhile outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council granted planning permission without referring it to the Planning Committee. This is because it is unlikely that an investigation would find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a business development. Miss X’s firm had appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate which it could have used, for the Council’s non‑determination of that application, and its 2016 refusal decision. The firm used its Planning Inspectorate appeals against the Council’s 2018 refusal of a further permission, and against the Council’s formal planning enforcement notice. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate those issues because the firm used its appeal rights.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for an extension to a property adjoining the complainant’s home. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us within 12 months of becoming aware that the application had been approved.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has refused to address a complaint he has made about a planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr Y’s complaint about how the Council dealt with reports about a neighbouring takeaway’s flue which had no planning consent and caused a nuisance. The Council could have considered serving an enforcement notice earlier but this caused no significant injustice. There was a failure of the environmental health team to communicate and co-ordinate with the planning enforcement team on some of its decisions. The agreed action remedies any injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not taken enforcement action about a breach of planning permission. He says neighbours have erected a gate which blocks the lane with parked cars and therefore blocks his mother’s access. He also complains about the way the Council handled his complaint. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

Summary: Mr X complains the Authority wrongly granted planning permission to develop outbuildings at a neighbouring property and failed to take enforcement action in relation to breaches of planning control. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Authority determined Mr X’s neighbour’s planning application. Nor is there evidence of fault in the way the Authority considered breaches of planning control or the retrospective application.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to respond properly and take appropriate action in response to his reports of increased land levels at a nearby development. Mr C says he will suffer from a lack of privacy and potential future drainage and sewerage issues. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision that a housebuilder will have to wait for the roads outside the new houses to be adopted before he can apply for dropped kerbs from the highway department.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s handling of matters concerning the construction of a site access for a planning development close to her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not taken planning enforcement action against a neighbour for running a business from a residential dwelling. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider the impact on the complainant’s amenity when determining a planning application for extensions at a neighbouring property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the application.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to uphold the law regarding highway signage. The Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to pursue planning enforcement action, and the Council’s actions have not caused the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way his personal information is treated by the Council on their planning website. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a developer. This is because Mr X has taken legal action against the Council and may make a claim against the developer.