Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Ms F’s complaint of it failing to notify her of a neighbour’s planning application. A newspaper press notice gave no deadline for submissions, the site notice was not erected in a location residents might see it, and it failed to keep a record of its location. It also failed to show it considered the need to restrict potential commercialisation of the facilities. I found no fault in the way it dealt with her complaint. The agreed action remedies any outstanding injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman has not investigated this complaint, about the expansion of an airport. Although the Council owns the airport, it is not a local authority administrative function, and so does not fall into the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. A planning application, relating to the expansion, remains outstanding, and so the Ombudsman will not investigate this matter now.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council allowed alterations to a housing development to be dealt with as non-material amendments rather than requiring a full planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms T’s complaint about the Council’s failure to properly consider the impact of a planning application on neighbouring properties. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for Ms T not to have complained sooner.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of her concerns about her neighbour’s building work. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach in Ms B’s case. The Council has explained its limited role in building control work by private Approved Inspectors and its view that Ms B neighbour’s work is allowed under permitted development rights. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the Council’s view where there is no evidence of procedural fault.

Summary: Mrs C complains about the Council’s consideration of a retrospective planning application for replacement windows and its response to her subsequent reports of planning breaches. Mrs C says she has spent unnecessary time and trouble and suffers from unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application, which he says affects his amenity and his boundary hedge. There was no fault in the decision-making process.

Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain the Council accepted incorrect plans, ignored their objections and granted planning permission to their neighbour which causes significant harm to their amenities. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The complainant says the Council refuses to add an informative about a restrictive covenant on a development site. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint. It is late. And we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has already used her right to appeal to a government minister. Parts of the complaint are also late, and it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault with the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant has already used their right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr F’s complaint of it failing to notify him of a neighbour’s planning application. It sent an incorrectly addressed letter, the press notice gave no deadline for submissions, the site notice was not erected in a location residents might see it, and it failed to keep a record of its location. It delayed dealing with his formal complaint. It also failed to show it considered the need to restrict any potential commercialisation of the facilities. The agreed action remedies any outstanding injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr F’s complaint of it failing to notify him of a neighbour’s planning application. A newspaper press notice gave no deadline for submissions, the site notice was not erected in a location residents might see it, and it failed to keep a record of its location. It also failed to show it considered the need to restrict potential commercialisation of the facilities. I found no fault in the way it dealt with his complaint. The agreed action remedies any outstanding injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council wrongly signed off substandard work to a property she has since bought. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Miss X.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a development. This is because the complainant has not been caused any significant injustice. Parts of the complaint are also late.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the way the Council handled her husband’s planning applications. The primary planning matter is now resolved because the Council granted Mr X the permission he sought, after a second application. The Ombudsman does not investigate secondary issues of the Council’s service to Mr and Mrs X. Mr X had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s refusal of the first application, which would have reduced the Council’s involvement.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has handled planning consent for a local development. He says the Council approved plans that did not comply with the law, failed to take enforcement action, does not have a policy on ordinary watercourse consent, and misused its complaints procedure to stop him complaining to the Ombudsman. Mr X says he and other residents are worried about an increased risk of flooding. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

Summary: I have stopped my investigation into this complaint as the Council is not responsible for Mr X’s decision to purchase a wall that later turned out to be defective. The vendor failed to advise Mr X about his previous dealings with the Council and Mr X did not have a survey done before he purchased the wall. There is also no fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for work to Mr X’s neighbour’s wall which is listed.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided not to take enforcement action when the complainant’s neighbour built an extension. The Council took into account all the relevant factors when it decided not to take action.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council took inadequate action to remove a flagpole from a neighbour’s garden, which did not have planning permission. We find no fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action but we do find fault with the way it reached this decision and the time taken to communicate it properly to Mr B. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £250 to recognise the frustration, inconvenience and his time and trouble.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of building control matters dating back to 2015 and the way it has dealt with his complaints. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because events from 2015 happened too long ago to be investigated now and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove permitted development rights at a site. The complainant can appeal to a government minister against the Council’s decision on the other application.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant her neighbour planning permission for an extension. This is because the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Ms X injustice.

Summary: This complaint concerns the conduct of the Council when processing a planning application and later complaint. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this matter. The complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and his concerns are therefore outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission to a neighbour for an extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council approving a planning application for a fence at a new development without consulting the highway authority. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to enforce planning conditions on a neighbouring property to prevent a loss of privacy. There is fault by the Council including considerable delay. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council agrees to pay financial redress to Mr D and has given an undertaking to progress the case.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application and its refusal to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control, causing her loss of privacy. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision making.

Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to follow procedures when dealing with a planning application in 2019. The Council has already accepted some errors, including Mr D’s objections being temporarily removed from its website. The Ombudsman has, therefore, found evidence of fault and upheld the complaint. He has not found any outstanding injustice to Mr D.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to allow a developer to change the materials used for a new building close to his home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Complaints about the original planning permission in 2015 are made too late. And it is unlikely further investigation will add to that carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s use of funds in relation to a planning permission. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no significant personal injustice caused to Mr X to warrant investigation and the Council’s actions affect all or most of the people of the area. Part of the complaint is out of time.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the way the Council considered and decided a planning application to develop a neighbouring property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it made its decision to justify an Ombudsman investigation. Miss X’s claimed injustice is not caused by Council action when carrying out its planning authority duties. Miss X’s ownership and control of the use of the land by neighbours are private civil matters, not material planning ones for the Council.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council responded to Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control on land near his home.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against a building developer who was persistently breaching planning conditions imposed to protect residential amenity during construction work. There was unreasonable delay in the way the Council responded, which is fault that it has agreed to remedy.

Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council handled planning matters relating to a new house next to his home. However, the Council has properly considered the impact of the new house as it is built, on him. It has also properly considered whether it should take enforcement action. There was no fault in how the Council assessed the issues and so there is no basis for me to criticise its decisions.

City of York Council (19 016 620)

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council makes documents available to the public during the process to make a new local development plan. Mrs X said that because of this, it was difficult for her to make detailed comments on changes that might affect her. We ended our investigation as we are unlikely to find fault or provide a meaningful remedy for Mrs X.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for development to a nearby property which she says has affected her residential amenity. 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 the actions of the Council’s building control officers. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome the complainant wants. The Ombudsman will also not investigate how the Council dealt with reports about a potentially dangerous structure. This is because the complainant has not been caused any significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning committee’s consideration of a planning application. This is because the issue did not cause Mr X significant personal injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or how it dealt with a 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: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council deals with planning applications. This is because he is unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused any significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has treated him poorly about a breach of planning control on his neighbour’s property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The alleged breach of planning control occurred in 2017 and it is too late to complain to the Ombudsman now. Complaints about failure to respond to requests for information have already been considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council's pre-application planning advice which she says led to unnecessary time and expense in pursuing an application which was unlikely to be successful. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council failed to identify a breach of planning permission during its initial enforcement visit to a development site, and it took a further visit before it recognised this error. This is fault. However, the Council was entitled to approve a retrospective application to regularise the breach, as it did. So there is no reason to believe the Council’s fault made a difference to the outcome, and consequently no significant injustice for it to address. For this reason, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a similar development to one for the same site which was previously refused. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a neighbour’s fence which they say breaches planning regulations. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to tell her and her neighbours about a planning application which they say will affect them. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to engage with him to try and overcome issues which delayed his planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as Mr X had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refuses to take enforcement action to protect him from his neighbour’s boiler flue. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we achieve the result Mr X is seeking.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application for a neighbour’s extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the alleged faults by the Council would not have altered the decision to grant planning permission and therefore no significant injustice caused.