Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly granted planning permission for a development which is contrary to Council policy. There is no fault in how the Council considered the planning application.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for an outdoor bar at a public house near her home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Mrs X.

Summary: Mr F complains about the way the Authority has dealt with a marquee, car parking and extractor fan, which he says breach planning policy. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Authority.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to send him letters to tell him his neighbour had applied for planning permission and so he had no opportunity to object to the initial and revised applications. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council because it did not send planning notification application letters by post. However, this did not cause a significant injustice to Mr B.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to land adjacent to his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because some matters fall outside our jurisdiction and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council decided to grant planning permission for development near the complainant’s home. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision.

Summary: The Council was at fault in its handling of Ms X’s report of a breach of planning control. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £250 in recognition of the frustration and avoidable time and trouble she had been caused. The Council also agreed to take steps to find out whether the activities Ms X reports do evidence a breach of planning control on land near her home.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council allowed a development that causes noise nuisance to her in her home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s assessment of his neighbours’ planning application. Mr B said his neighbours’ extension breached the 45-degree rule and this negatively affected the view from his lounge. The Council accepts it wrongly applied the 45-degree rule. Mr B was caused an injustice and the Council has agreed to take action to remedy this.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to protect her amenity when it approved a planning application for development on land behind her home. We have no power to investigate the complaint because Mrs X began legal proceedings against the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour who operates a car repair business near Mr X’s home. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints. There was fault by the Council because of unreasonable delay and inaction in its dealings with Mr X. The Council agreed to a financial remedy that reflects the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for development near Mr X’s home.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly allows a motorbike business to operate near her home and that it has not responded appropriately to her communications. There is no fault in the Council’s explanation that the business is operating according to its planning permission. The Council has agreed to assess Ms X’s reports that the business is causing a nuisance.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council’s processing of his clients planning application was flawed. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint. It is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking. Also, there is another body better placed to consider parts of this complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint about the Council’s handling and approval of a neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate a man’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with his enquiries about the planning status of land he owns. This is mainly because there is no sign that any fault by the Council has caused the man an injustice to warrant our involvement. It is also unlikely we could achieve the planning outcome he is seeking.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed and then ended an agreement for him to buy the lease on some land for a housing scheme. He wants repayment of all planning and legal fees paid to the Council. He also wants compensation and a public apology. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Councils actions. And Mr X can ask the courts to decide whether the Council is liable for his financial losses.

Summary: Dr B complains the Council lied about the publication of a report on a planning application. She says she was obstructed and denied access to the report. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Dr B has received a copy of the report. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the quality of the pre-planning application advice given to her by the Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s action. And Mrs X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s granting of his neighbour planning permission for a replacement house and swimming pool. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there we have not seen any evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council is considering a planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council has not yet determined the planning application and so no significant injustice has been caused to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to notify her of a planning application for a development near her property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms C complains about the way the Council handled an application for planning permission for a development next to her property and its failure to take enforcement action when the development was built in breach of planning permission. The Ombudsman finds no fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not taken enforcement action against the removal of a hedgerow. He says this breaches legislation, national guidance and the Council’s local policies aimed at protecting biodiversity. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council considered the planning application or whether to take enforcement action.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to deal efficiently with his three related planning applications and did not treat him fairly. The complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Mr X used his right of appeal to the planning inspector, had rights of appeal on earlier decisions, and complains late about events in 2018.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council has dealt with three planning applications. It is unlikely he would find fault by the Council has caused the complainant significant injustice. Further the courts are better placed to deal with alleged negligence and the police should deal with alleged criminal activity by the Council.