Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to accept a planning application for determination. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised his builder about compliance with the Building Regulations. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he could appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complains about the grant of planning permission by the Council for a change of use (from commercial to residential) to a nearby property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs B complains about how long the Council has taken to investigate her planning enforcement complaint about her neighbour’s business and its refusal to give her updates on its progress. The Council was at fault for the delay in progress and its communication approach, which has meant Mrs B received no updates on progress or responses to her complaints about the Council’s handling. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs B for the avoidable delay and lack of contact. The Council will also review its communication approach for planning enforcement matters and its complaints procedure.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how long it took the Council to determine the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the planning inspector.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of consultation events it held regarding a proposed development. She also complains about the Council’s communication with her and with the Council’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for its communication with Miss X. We do not find fault with the Council’s other actions. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of repair and planning matters for a building it owns in a conservation area. Mr X says the Council’s actions damaged the building putting it at risk of demolition, which would harm the conservation area. The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation because earlier events happened too long ago to address now, and the Council has taken suitable action in response to Mr X’s more recent concerns.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to have due regard to his human rights when it considered his vehicle crossover application and appeal. The Council was at fault and has agreed to allow Mr X a fresh appeal to remedy his complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the management of car parking at a private development. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission for a development next to his home without considering local planning policies. There is fault in the way the Council considered the planning application. It failed to properly consider the impact of the development on a local historic building. The Council should apologise to Mr X and pay £150 to recognise the unnecessary time and trouble this caused him.

Summary: Miss B complains the Council did not take enforcement action against breaches of planning consent by a neighbouring café. Miss B says activity in and outside the café at unsociable hours impacts on her enjoyment of her property. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council investigated Miss B’s concerns.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council granted planning permission for a development next to her home without considering local planning policies. There is fault in the way the Council considered the planning application. It failed to properly consider the impact on Ms X’s home and a local historic building. The Council should apologise to Ms X and pay £250 to recognise the unnecessary time and trouble this caused her.

Summary: Ms X complained about the County Council transferring money paid under a planning legal agreement to a third party to carry out works near her home. Ms X said the third party did not have the ability to carry out the works and its errors badly affected her residential amenities. The Ombudsman did not find fault by the County Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Miss E’s complaint of the Council failing to notify her of a planning application. The Council erected a site notice which brought it to her attention, allowing her to make representations. It also properly considered whether there had been a change of use of the shop. The Council failed to show it acted on a suggestion by a senior planning officer, kept Miss E updated, or promptly tell her the outcome of its investigation. It failed to deal with her complaint according to its own timeframe. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission and any complaint about the Council’s enforcement of planning conditions is premature.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about work carried out following the grant of planning permission. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused any significant injustice.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council decided a retrospective planning application for a fence on a new development to the rear of his house. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Even if there were fault, the resulting fence development does not cause Mr X sufficient personal injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council considered his neighbour’s plans to build a large rear extension. He says the extension impacts on his light and privacy, and its decision is inconsistent because it refused his similar application. There was no fault by the Council. It properly considered the impact on Mr B of the new extension and took into account all the relevant factors.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Miss H’s complaint of it failing to properly consider the impact a proposed development would have on her amenities. It failed to show it considered the impact a building would have on daylight to her property, the impact of light from large windows, and the impact of the car parking area on privacy. It failed to include in its decision notice a recommended condition. These caused no significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way Authority officers dealt with changes he wished to make to planning permission for a development in the national park. We found there was no fault by the Authority.

Summary: Mrs X says the Council failed to properly consider her amenity when approving a planning application. She says the Council’s approval of the development will disturb the quiet enjoyment of her rented property. The Council’s consideration of environmental issues raised by Mrs X is at fault. I consider this has damaged her faith in the planning system which is an injustice. But, even if the Council had done things correctly, it would have granted permission. We have recommended the Council acknowledge the distress caused with an apology and a service improvement recommendation.