Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to investigate properly and take effective action in response to his reports of breaches of planning control at a nearby quarry. Mr C says he suffered excessive noise, dust and vibration and possible damage to his property. The Ombudsman has found delay by the Council but considers the agreed actions of an apology, £300 and a review of its monitoring arrangements are enough to provide a suitable remedy with the enforcement action the Council is now progressing.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council requiring a further planning application for a barn conversion which he says it approved in 2015. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an application.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council not properly considering the parking implications of a planning application for a development near his home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns a planning matter which was not yet determined by the Council and so there is no evidence of fault causing injustice at the time.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council refusing planning applications for a log cabin which she built for residential use. She also says it is unreasonably taking enforcement action against her for using the cabin as a dwelling. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mrs X has exercised her rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the planning decisions and the enforcement notice served on her. She is also taking court action over one of the applications which prevents the Ombudsman from considering the matter, even if it had been received in time.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions on a planning application to develop a neighbouring property. Officers were entitled to recommend the application be permitted by the Council’s planning committee. The application was refused permission by the committee, and at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. There is no further planning outcome the Ombudsman can achieve. The Council has apologised for faults in its service to Mr X, and advised of internal actions it will take to improve its service. Mr X has received the remedy the Ombudsman may have sought here and there is no further remedy warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in deciding her planning application. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council considered and decided an application for a House in Multiple Occupation near his home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its professional judgement decision to grant the permission to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not properly consider a planning application for a development next to his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly consider an application for a certificate of lawfulness of use and robustly challenge evidence presented to it. The Council says it considered all the information. The Ombudsman finds the Council decided the application without fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a large-scale development, and the conduct of a meeting of its planning committee. This is because the Council’s decision to grant permission is subject to court proceedings, which means it is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction; and there is no significant, separate injustice arising from the conduct of the meeting.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint. This is because the substantive matter, a grant of planning permission, is now subject to court proceedings, and so is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning matters related to the development of his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because parts of it fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and the availability of appeal rights to the Planning Inspector and an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Summary: Ms B 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: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over a neighbour’s conservatory which she says was built higher than the approved plans. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council’s notification of a neighbour’s planning application did not explain there would be works at the rear of the building. He also complained the Council did not properly consider the impact on his amenity when it approved the application. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault because the delegated officer’s report did not sufficiently consider the impact of the planning application on Mr C's amenity. However, this did not cause an injustice to Mr C.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council will not withdraw two planning Enforcement Notices against her. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there was a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector and the notices have now expired so nothing further would be achieved by investigation.

Summary: A nursery complains the Council withdrew its support for new premises, resulting in significant financial loss. The Ombudsman discontinued his consideration of this complaint. This is because even if we were to investigate the matter further and find the Council was at fault we cannot achieve compensation for the considerable financial loss the nursery attributes to the Council’s actions.

Summary: There was fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control and it missed an opportunity to take action to address this. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £100 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused, and act to improve its service.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for a major development next to land he owns. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate Mr X’s complaint. It is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s actions and we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to properly consider her objections to a planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the possible grant of planning permission for a development next door to her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the injustice is speculative as the planning application has not yet been determined.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take further enforcement action. This is because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant has not suffered any personal injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the temporary grant of planning permissions for a development next to her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because she has an opportunity to object to the renewal planning application which has been submitted. The injustice is therefore too speculative to investigate. The previous planning permission is out of time.

Summary: Mr C says the Council wrongly granted planning permission for an extension to his neighbour’s house which blocked daylight from his kitchen. He says this has affected his enjoyment of it. The Council was at fault for having an unclear policy, for a failure to inform its planning committee of that policy, and for breach of an undertaking to enforce a breach of planning permission. This caused Mr C injustice both because he has lost confidence in the Council and because of the time he has spent pursuing the matter. The Council should pay him a sum in consideration of his trouble, fulfil its undertaking to enforce the breach and review the relevant policy.