Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision on a planning application. She says the development will impact her privacy. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council’s decision making process, causing injustice. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology and ensures its records are accurate.

Summary: Mr F complains about the Council’s decision to grant outline planning permission for a new dwelling next to his home. The Ombudsman has found no fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not ensuring the implementation of a travel plan for a residential development built in 2014. This complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion to investigate it now. There is insufficient evidence that the absence of the travel plan has caused Mr X a significant personal injustice. Mr X’s main route for redress is against the developer which was responsible for implementing the plan. The Ombudsman also cannot achieve outcomes Mr X seeks.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council will not take planning enforcement action against his neighbour for an unauthorised building. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complains a Council officer lied throughout the planning process, including to the planning committee, when it considered her retrospective planning application. She says this led the committee to refuse her application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It is outside our jurisdiction because Mrs X has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s refusal of her application.

Summary: Ms X complains for herself and a group of her neighbours about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for three new houses close to their homes in 2015. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is too late.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to act against a breach of planning control on his neighbour’s property which he reported in 2015. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it too late.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council requiring reports about breaches of planning control to be made using its online form. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice to Mr X caused by any fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained about the Council’s decision on a reserved matters application. They say a high fence approved under the application will affect their outlook and create a space for anti-social behaviour. There is no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application of its own development. Mr X says the development will affect his amenities and should have been refused. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s offer to compensate him for loss of light. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for two residential developments near the complainant’s home. The Ombudsman also should not investigate how the Council dealt with complaints about a possible breach of planning control. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to tell him about his neighbour’s planning application. He also says the Council failed to consider the impact of the neighbours’ proposal on his home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council’s officers and planning committee considered and decided permissions for a residential development next to his home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or its decision to grant retrospective planning permission. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council. Parts of the complaint are also late.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to ensure builders carried out work to his mother’s property to the correct standard. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council deciding not to enforce against a breach of planning permission by the developer of a neighbouring property. It was not Council actions or inactions which led to the planning breach, resulting in an encroachment over Mr X’s property. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants because he cannot order the developer to remedy their building error.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in taking enforcement action against a developer who breached planning approval for a nearby development. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the action which the Council has taken since 2019. We will not investigate earlier issues which relate to matters outside the 12-month period for receiving complaints.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to accept that development had commenced on a neighbouring site within the 3- year limit when he says it had not. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly discharged a planning condition despite incomplete information being submitted. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. This is because Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice and he can take the matter up with his local councillor or MP.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s approval of a planning application for a development in 2018 which she says has affected her property. Subject to any comments Mrs X might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which the complainant was aware of outside the 12-month timescale for receiving complaints.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council requiring him to sign a Section 106 agreement as a condition of approving his planning application in 2018. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which he was aware of and could have appealed against in 2018 which is outside the normal 12-period for receiving complaints.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development. This is because it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different outcome. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr Q wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council did not follow the correct process when deciding a planning application. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault and the injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on planning matters, causing him distress and resulting in flooding to his property. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement action and its failure to remove defamatory information about him from its website. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault in its consideration of enforcement action and any complaint of defamation is a matter for the courts.

Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to follow its scheme of delegation and allowed an officer to approve a planning application, rather than refer it to its planning committee. The Council should pay each of the 10 members of the resident’s association £100. This is to recognise their lost opportunity to speak to the committee, the uncertainty of the outcome and the time and trouble spent in pursuing the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains about the grant of planning permission for the change of use of a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to him to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the way the Council dealt with two planning applications in 2011 and 2015, both related to a nearby industrial business use of a former fully agricultural site. The complaints are late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to investigate them now.