Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to retain records to show they had commenced their development in the early 1990s. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr and Mrs X.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s planning advice for buildings which he owns. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that an investigation would find fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about how the council decided a planning application for a neighbouring property. This is because the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning applications. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Miss X significant injustice.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control near Mr X’s home.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development. This is because she has already used her right to appeal to a government minister. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in deciding the subsequent applications to extend her home as she could have also appealed to the Planning Inspector about these matters. The remaining parts of Mrs X’s complaint are late.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to control noise from his neighbour’s extension developments. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision on a planning application causing her to suffer loss of safety, privacy and a loss of property value. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr & Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against their neighbour. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in deciding his planning application. Mr X had the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s non-determination of his application and it would have been reasonable for him to have used it.

Summary: The Council was at fault in the way in which it considered a non-material amendment application in relation to a development site next to Mr X’s property. It inadvertently approved clear glazing in windows previously intended to have obscure glazing. But the error did not affect Mr X’s residential amenity. The Council has apologised for its mistake and I see no need for any further remedy. The Council was not at fault in the way in which it considered a subsequent s.73 application.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council’s building control officers gave contradictory and inconsistent advice. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council in this regard. There was some fault in the handling of the complaint leading to delay, for which an apology has been given, and the Council has agreed to identify and implement improvements in its complaint handling.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour’s garden building which is contrary to its planning policy. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely any further investigation will lead to a different outcome. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process and decision to refuse his planning application. Mr X had the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to challenge that decision and obtain the independent assessment of it that he seeks. The evidence shows the Council told Mr X about his appeal rights, and it would have been reasonable for him to have used them. A further complaint about an incident in 2016 is late and there are no good grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate it now.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint made by elected Members of the Council. They are not complaining as members of the public.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr K’s complaint about the Council failing to investigate and take enforcement action against a neighbour’s development which had no consent. The Council properly considered the impact of the proposed development on his amenities when it received a retrospective planning application. While it failed to promptly respond to his stage 1 complaint, I consider the apology the Council gave, and this investigation, remedied any injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not require usual separation distances between his home and houses in a new housing development. There was fault in the way the Council made its planning decision, but we cannot show this made any difference to the outcome.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not taken enforcement action against two sites he believes have breached planning permission. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council’s investigation into alleged planning breaches.

Summary: Mrs B complained about how the Council considered a planning application for a site next to her property. Mrs B says she has suffered stress and anxiety and is concerned about light pollution from floodlights to her property. The Ombudsman should not investigate the complaint at this stage until the outcome of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision on the second planning application for the site is known as that could affect any injustice to Mrs B.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr L’s complaint of the Council failing to provide him with notification of an application for consent for advertisements, 3 flags, and 2 sale boards on a nearby development site. The Council provided evidence of the notification letter sent to him. Mr L lodged representations which the Council considered. The Council properly considered the application’s impact on resident amenities.

Summary: Mr X complains the Authority did not properly consider the impact on his amenity when granting planning permission for an extension to a building near his home. As a result, he says he will suffer from noise and disturbance. The Authority was not at fault.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council approved a new planning application to the property behind his house. He says the new plans will affect his amenity and the value of his home. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning matters. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the complaint because it falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to planning breaches by the same landowner over a number of years. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because past events happened too long ago to be investigated now and an investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council’s more recent actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that the Council failed to notify him and others of a planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.