Summary: Mr D says the Council did not properly consider objections to a planning application. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against an unauthorised extension. He says the unauthorised extension has caused damp in his property which has cost him financially. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault for its failure to progress the case for two years or to consider taking direct action. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr B by its inaction.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council considered incorrect distances when determining a planning application at a neighbouring property. Mr X’s complaint about this is late and so falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. There is no fault in how the Council considered an application for a non-material amendment.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council will not take planning enforcement action against a school for using gates for general access opposite his house. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because any investigation would be unlikely to conclude fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains about planning permission granted by the Council for a neighbour’s extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of injustice caused by alleged maladministration by the Council as the planning application would have been granted despite this.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning decisions on a development across the road from their property. The development as permitted does not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr and Mrs X which would warrant an Ombudsman 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 he is unlikely to find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused any significant injustice.

Summary: Ms X makes multiple complaints about the Council’s actions on a development of new homes next to her property. These include alleged errors in the planning process, failures to enforce planning conditions, and failures to ensure access to her property remains clear. She also complains the Council is failing to follow the terms of easements rights over land in front of her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate these complaints because they are too late, we are unlikely to find fault and the Ombudsman cannot adjudicate on disputed points of law.

Summary: Mrs F complains of multiple faults in the Council’s consideration of a planning application for an agricultural building in a field next to her home. We find fault in how the Council summarised certain matters in a planning report and for omitting certain conditions to its planning permission which it said it would do. However, we do not find these faults caused Mrs F an injustice and so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman has not investigated this complaint, about the development of a new housing estate near the complainants’ homes. This is because the complaint is late; but it is also unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.

Summary: the Ombudsman finds that there was fault by the Council in its consideration of a planning application for lawful use of a building. But he did not find this caused injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council wrongly accused him of encroaching on Council land. He says that this has caused him and his wife considerable stress and they have been put to considerable time & trouble responding to these false allegations. The Council has already accepted that there was fault in the way it dealt with these matters. However, the Ombudsman considers that the injustice caused warrants a financial remedy. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs B, pay them £300 for their distress and time & trouble, and take steps to ensure that officers are familiar with the Council’s procedures.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application which included an access road which crossed a cycle path. Mr X says he feels unsafe when crossing the road on his bicycle because priority was given to vehicles. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the County Council’s decision to recommend a change to the layout of a junction, where a cycle path crossed a new access road. Mr X says he feels unsafe crossing the junction on his bicycle, because priority is given to vehicles. There is no evidence of fault in the way the County Council made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about data protection issues linked to a planning application. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider his complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the way the Council consulted local residents on its proposal for a controlled parking zone and its refusal of her application for a dropped kerb. This is because we have not seen evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about inconsistency in the Council’s approach to their pre-application discussion and formal planning application. Their injustice is the result of the Council’s decision not to approve their original plans and if they disputed this it would have been reasonable for them to decline to vary the plans and appeal.