Summary: Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate concerns he expressed about the accuracy of plans submitted with a planning application. Mr X also says the Council failed to notify the public of an application to vary a section 106 agreement. There was fault by the Council because it did not publicise the application to vary the section 106 agreement. However, this fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to ensure landscaping and maintenance of opens spaces have been carried out by the developers of the land. He says this has caused pathways to become overgrown and untidy. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council as it did not consider taking enforcement action after the developer stopped communication. There is also fault with the Council’s complaint handling. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s approval of a neighbour’s planning application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to support her in connection with a developer’s application to vary a planning permission and about how it dealt with objections to an earlier application. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and no decision has yet been made on the application to amend the permission.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning applications. This is because he has or had rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. In addition, the injustice he suffered because of other matters associated with his applications is not significant enough on its own to justify our involvement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to inform him in advance of its decision on his client’s planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to visit his property as part of its pre-application planning advice service. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Authority’s approval of a planning application for development near to a village church. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Authority considered these matters so has completed his investigation.

Summary: Mr Y says the Council did not follow the correct process when responding to reports of nuisance and planning breaches from a nearby restaurant. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of procedural fault in the Council’s actions. The investigation was prolonged and remains ongoing, however this is mostly due to factors outside of the Council’s control.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an agricultural building on land next to her home. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for an extension to a neighbouring house. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it made its professional judgement decisions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Council delay in uploading planning documents to its website did not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice. The Ombudsman would not investigate a council’s complaint process in isolation when he does not intend to investigate the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: Mr X says the Council has colluded with a former councillor to frustrate his planning applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions and Mr X has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council processed her neighbour’s planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve what Mrs X wants.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider the impact on his privacy when it approved a planning application for a site next to his home. The Ombudsman cannot consider this complaint as the decision to approve the application was made by the Planning Inspectorate which is not within his jurisdiction.

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: Mrs C says the Council did not inform her about a planning application from a supermarket near her house to move its loading bay closer to her house. She says this caused her injustice because she now suffers increased noise from a refrigeration unit and lorries arriving outside permitted delivery times. She also says the Council did not respond to her initial complaint. The Council was not at fault. It was not obliged to inform Mrs C as this was a minor application. It did publicise the application at the site, in a local paper and on its website. It later visited her house and found the noise was not a nuisance. However, the Council failed to respond to Mrs C’s initial complaint. This was fault. It has already apologised.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control, affecting his amenity and privacy. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault because it did not follow its planning enforcement policy or a proper decision making process. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides Mr X with an apology, makes a payment for time and trouble, distress and lost opportunity and, takes action to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly deal with planning applications and approved something that could not be built. He also complains it failed to take enforcement action and this has created highway safety issues. The enforcement matter is the focus of this investigation. There is no fault as the Council properly investigated the breach of planning control and then used its professional judgement to decide not to take formal enforcement action.

Summary: Mrs C complains the Council did not require a flood risk assessment as part of a 2016 planning application which is likely to cause flooding. The Ombudsman has ended his investigation due to the passage of time and because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s quality monitoring processes when dealing with planning applications. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a streetlight because he first complained to the Council about that issue in November 2017. The matter is late, and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate it now. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement action against a fence he built at the front of his property. Mr X has appealed the matter to the Planning Inspectorate, so the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate it.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council held a referendum for a neighbourhood plan containing a misleading statement about not building houses on flood zone land. Mr B says residents may be adversely affected by development on flood zone land and were potentially misled by the statement which may have affected the referendum outcome. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was delay in considering complaints about planning breaches and it gave the wrong advice that Mr B did not need to apply for planning permission for a fence. Waiving the fee for a retrospective application remedies the injustice from the wrong advice and the delay did not affect the outcome of the complaints. There was no fault on other matters raised by Mr B.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council delayed installing a fence to shield her property during development works in 2019. The Ombudsman has found evidence of delay and poor handling of the case. He has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to the recommended actions including financial redress for Mrs B and her family.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action against a developer who caused noise nuisance during construction and converted a property which does not comply with the planning approval. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about income arising from a legal agreement relating to a housing development. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice to the complainant.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application and planning enforcement concerns relating to the development. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of an agricultural prior notification application. 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: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council did not give him an adequate opportunity to object to a proposed very tall telecommunications mast. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in this case.