Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not take enforcement action against a developer who failed to fully implement the development where he lives. We have discontinued our investigation as there is no significant personal injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Ms Y complains about the development of a new housing estate behind her property, which she says has not been built in accordance with the approved plans. The Council considered Ms Y’s report of a possible breach of planning control, visited the site and measured the height and elevation of the houses being built. It decided there was no breach to enforce against. The Council followed its policy when considering whether to take enforcement action, and we do not uphold the complaint.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to consider the impact on her property's amenity caused by raised ground levels at a new development near her home. Ms X also complains the Council failed to take account of the advice of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) regarding a permeable rainwater storage tank near her property. The Council’s failure to record the reasons for its decision to discharge a planning condition amounts to fault. However, this fault has not caused Ms X an injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered planning applications for development. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient personal injustice caused to Mr X to warrant investigation.

Summary: Miss B and Mr C complain the Council did not consider properly the height of development near to their home. The plans they were shown, and that were published on the Council’s website when the planning application was approved, showed the part of the development near to their home lower than their land. The Council approved detailed levels drawings, without consulting them, and which show the development to be around 1.5m higher than they had expected. They say the development as built has an adverse impact on their enjoyment of their home. There was no fault by the Council in the consideration of the planning application.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing the complainant information about a planning application. The complainant can take the matter up with the Information Commissioner.

Summary: Mr X complains about lack of planning enforcement action by the Council in relation to a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant personal injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to serve a planning enforcement notice upon him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he had a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no significant personal injustice caused to Mr X to warrant investigation. Any disputes about ownership of land are a private legal matter.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application for development near her. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the planning application has not yet been determined and so any injustice is speculative and insufficient to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action and its handling of his complaint. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in its decision making process and in its handling of Mr X’s complaint. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology, makes a payment for time and trouble, reinvestigates Mr X’s allegations and acts to prevent recurrence.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement decision and information it gave him about the appeal process. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Mr X appealed to the planning inspector.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the behaviour of a Council officer. This is because the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. The complainant has also not been caused any personal or significant injustice by the matter.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. The alleged breach of planning control does not cause Mr X significant injustice and it is not a good use of resources to investigate separately the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint about the issue.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s application for a certificate of lawful development. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

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: Mr X complained the Council failed to decide a prior approval planning application to erect a telecom mast in his village within the statutory timescales. This meant the developer was able to erect the mast without planning control. The Council was at fault, but it has already apologised to Mr X, which is an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

Summary: The complainant says the Council gave preferential treatment to her neighbour’s planning application over her own application for pre-planning application advice four years ago. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because he is unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a planning matter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council affecting its decision to grant planning permission.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not consulting her on the final accepted development plans for her neighbour’s extension. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision not to re-consult to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to enforce against a neighbouring property’s breach of a planning condition requiring the construction and retention of a bin store. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to use its discretionary enforcement powers, or a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matter, to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council failed to take residents’ views into account when allowing the use of a local park by a funfair. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council considered this matter.

Summary: Mrs X, represented by her local Councillor, complained about the Council’s decision not to refer her neighbour’s planning application to its plans panel. The Ombudsman found there was fault in the decision-making process. However, there was no injustice to Mrs X because the Ombudsman cannot say that, but for the fault, the outcome would have been different.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action over a nearby development which he says does not comply with 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: The Council has not yet completed work to improve communication with residents about a local development, but this has not caused Mr X significant personal injustice.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not properly consider the impact of her neighbour’s planning application in terms of loss of light and outlook to her property. Specifically, she says the Council was wrong to classify her dining room as a non-habitable room on the basis her tenants were using it for storage when the Council’s planning officer visited. She says the planning permission will result in loss of light and outlook to her property and will reduce its value. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot and will not investigate a residents’ association’s complaint about the accuracy of Planning Committee minutes. This is because the Residents’ Association took legal action against the Council regarding a planning application it approved in the Association’s area. And the injustice its members have suffered because of other planning applications is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against a development next to her home which had no consent. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council properly considered the impact of the development on her amenities when it received a retrospective planning application. While it failed to promptly respond to enquiries, I consider the apology the Council gave, and the seeking and consideration of a retrospective planning application, remedied any injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision that the addition of a new gateway in a nearby field was permitted development and does not require a planning application. 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 that the Council failed to take enforcement action against a neighbour’s conservatory. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the planning advice given to him by the Council which led to him incurring additional costs and fees. 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: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a development opposite his business premises, which he says will cause an impact on his security and amenity. 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 the complainant’s planning applications. This is because he is unlikely to find fault and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications or the pre-application advice it gave. This is because the complainant has already appealed to a government minister. The complaint is also late.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has misled the Planning Inspector in connection with his appeal about a fence he wishes to retain on his property. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint because Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspector and so the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the advice and information the Council gave the complainant about a plot of land it was selling or its decision to refuse his planning application. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate if he disagreed with the decision to refuse planning permission. Allegations of misrepresentation can only be dealt with by the courts.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. The complaint is also late.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not providing him with updates on a delayed planning application to which he had objected. It is not fault for a council to not keep planning objectors updated on other people’s planning applications. The Council apologised for not providing a promised response to one of Mr X’s contacts. That is the outcome the Ombudsman would have sought had he investigated so there is no further outcome for him to seek which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council allowed a neighbouring business to install external lighting bollards, which shine into his home. He says the Council did not properly consider the impact of the bollards on his amenity and made errors in the way it dealt with the application. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council managed the planning procedure and in its response to Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged it approved a non-material amendment planning application without considering the development’s impact on the complainant’s amenity.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the conduct of planning enforcement officers during a planning enforcement investigation. I have stopped investigating this complaint. No further action is needed as the issue is not one the Ombudsman can deal with.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application in 2018. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Concerns about the planning permission granted in 2018 are made too late.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s acceptance of an application for ‘reserved matters’. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and the matter has not caused Mr X injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour’s development. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Mr X wants the overshadowing impact of the development on his property to be reconsidered, which is an outcome the Ombudsman cannot provide.

Summary: The complainant says the Building Control Regulation Guidance on drainage and waste disposal published by the Government is being interpreted illogically in England. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. The guidance is published by the Government which is not a body within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Parish Council’s objections to his planning application, lodged with the District Council. He has no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about parish councils. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about his ongoing planning application with the District Council. If he disagrees with that Council’s planning decision, he will have a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which it would be reasonable for him to use.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council did not investigate properly her complaints of breaches of planning control of properties not owned by her. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no significant personal injustice caused to her by this to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council managed changes to a planning application for a neighbouring property. He says the Council has allowed his neighbour to build an extension with three windows on the side elevation, an extended balcony and overhanging drainage. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council’s procedures on consultation and in its design guidance. Also, in not updating Mr B about its enforcement investigation.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council gave misleading advice about the need for planning permission on a property she intended buying. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because she appealed to the Planning Inspector and there was a process for formally obtaining a decision about the need for planning permission.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the way the Council dealt with a planning application and subsequent enforcement. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time and there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered enforcement action.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application for a nearby loft conversion. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is in sufficient injustice to Ms X to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to notify him about his neighbour’s retrospective planning application. Mr X says the new development causes an impact on his amenity. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to protect mature trees on land behind his home. Mr X says the removal of the trees has affected his amenity. There was some fault in the way the Council made its planning decision, which it agreed to remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council approving a planning application for a neighbouring development which contained a planning condition which could not be applied. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice caused by fault on the Council’s part which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council refuses to act against an alleged breach of planning control. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council decided not to take enforcement action. And, if Mr B believes the Council has been negligent, he can ask the court to decide whether the Council should pay compensation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mrs X’s concerns about a sewage treatment plant. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to remove comments on a planning application from its website. This is because it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council refused his application for planning permission to develop his land. Mr X had the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, an appeal right it was not unreasonable for him to have used. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s internal complaints process in isolation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that its description of a non-material amendment was not detailed enough. This is because Mr X’s injustice is not the result of the Council’s actions and it is unlikely we would find fault on the issue.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint that the Council wrongly required their builder to dig deeper foundations for their extension than originally advised. The complaint is late and we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Summary: Mr X complains about matters relating to the Council’s Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the complaint because Mr X has complained on behalf of a town council and by law we cannot investigate complaints from public bodies.

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

Summary: Mr X (who represents a number of complainants) says that the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for a development near the complainants’ houses. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been considered by a court (via judicial review).

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of her planning application. Mrs X had and used her right of appeal against the decision with the Planning Inspectorate. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider the effect on his residential amenity when determining a planning application on land behind his property. He also complains about nuisance from the building works. The Council did consider the impact of two storey properties behind his bungalow and took the view the relationship was acceptable in terms of privacy, outlook and overlooking. It did respond to the complaints about noise, out of hours working and dust. While it issued a breach of condition notice it did not take further formal action.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to notify them of a planning application and has refused to take enforcement action to reposition an external staircase which overhangs their back garden. There is no fault in the planning approval and insufficient injustice to investigate the enforcement decision.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to add specific conditions to his neighbours planning permission. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s approval of plans for a replacement garage at a neighbouring property which he says affects the amenity of his home. 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 Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a 15-metre-tall post and net structure on the cricket pitch near his home. Both the Planning Officer and Committee followed and considered the relevant legislation and the objections received before deciding to approve the application. Without fault in the process, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make

Summary: Mr X complains about an unauthorised use of land near his home. While the Council agrees there has been a material change of use that breaches planning control, it decided not to take enforcement action. Enforcement action is discretionary, and the Ombudsman found no fault in how the Council reached its decision not to act against the planning breach reported by Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to notify him about his neighbour’s planning application, which he believes will affect his amenity. There was fault in the way the Council made its decision, for which it has already apologised. The fault made no difference to the outcome of its planning decision.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the application.

Summary: Mss Y complains the Council gave her the wrong advice when she completed an application for Prior Approval. She wants the application fee refunded. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we believe further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of their neighbour’s planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault affecting its decision. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued a completion certificate for substandard work carried out on a property he has since bought. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: The Council is at fault as it failed to carry out its own investigation into whether Mr Y’s occupancy of an annexe at Mr X’s property breached a planning condition. The Council also failed to take account of Mr Y’s disabilities and vulnerability. The faults caused distress and avoidable time and trouble to Mr X and significant distress to Mr Y. The Council has offered a payment of £300 to Mr X and £550 to Mr Y to acknowledge the injustice to them. This is a sufficient and proportionate remedy.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the way in which the Council dealt with a planning application and subsequent enforcement complaint about development next to her property. We find the Council properly granted planning permission and reached a valid decision on the enforcement issue but failed to properly explain the decision to Mrs B or keep a proper record of its processes. However, we do not consider Mrs B was caused an injustice because the fault did not affect the planning decision.

Summary: Miss B complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application to vary a condition for nearby development with particular reference to drainage issues. Miss B says as a result her land suffers surface water flooding on a scale not previously experienced. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a neighbour’s building conversion which has impacted negatively on her own property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X seeks.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in enforcing against an unauthorised rear extension to a Grade II Listed property on the road where he lives. The matter does not cause Mr X sufficient personal injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. An investigation could not achieve any further worthwhile outcomes for Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to allow him to install a dropped kerb at his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation and the Council has offered to revisit the site to confirm the measurements involved.

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 and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council decided to grant permission for a neighbouring house extension. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning decision, or in not deciding the application at its planning committee, to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council publicised a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X, on behalf of a number of residents in the area, complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development as well as the level of public consultation. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate enforcement reports he made about a commercial site to the rear of his home. We found there was fault by the Council. The Council agreed to make a payment to Mr X to reflect the additional time Mr X had to spend chasing the complaints. The Council also agreed to review an issue with its records and take a prompt decision on a retrospective planning application. This would enable it to decide upon any relevant enforcement action needed for the site in question.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has 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: Mr and Mrs X complain about the way the Council decided not to take action against railings installed on a flat roof section of their neighbour’s house. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it made its decision not to enforce to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

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

Summary: A resident’s association complained the Council failed to properly consider their enforcement reports and failed to consider key factors when reaching a decision not to take enforcement action in respect of a site that is an Asset of Community Value (ACV). There was fault by the Council in respect of the earliest reports the group made. The records kept are poor and it took too long to reach a decision. However, we did not find fault in the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. The Council agreed to apologise and review its record keeping and communication for enforcement reports.

Summary: Mr Q complained that the Council helped and supported a community land trust to block the sale of his property. The complaint was closed because there was no evidence of fault by the Council in the matters raised by Mr Q.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council will not take enforcement action to remove two small neighbouring fences which he says affect views from a vehicle leaving his property and causes a risk to users of the footpath. The Council has not caused Mr X an injustice. Investigation would not be a good use of limited public resources or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault affecting its decision.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a property next to her house. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault causing injustice to Ms X. Part of the complaint is out of time.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action against a neighbour who used lead flashing as part of an extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault.

Summary: There is no fault in how the Council considered the impact of overlooking on Ms X’s home when it granted panning permission for her neighbour’s extension.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action against a neighbour’s building works. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for a variation of planning conditions. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there was a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to protect their amenities by enforcing breaches of planning controls. We ended our investigation because the planning process is ongoing.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement in relation to a building he manages for his company. Mr X says the Council is causing disruption and uncertainty to his business. We ended our investigation as we are unlikely to find fault or reach a meaningful outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to extend Mr and Mrs X’s neighbour’s home. This is because Mr and Mrs X have not been caused any significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council publicised a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response and the complainant has not been caused any personal injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Authority’s decision to serve a repairs notice on him in 2010 which it withdrew in 2018 following a change of staff. He says it acted unreasonably in taking enforcement action over a period of several years. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which we investigated in 2011 and which took place more than 12 months ago. Mr X did not complain about the decision to withdraw the repairs notice within 12 months of being informed of the decision.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on a planning application, risking the safety of him and other pedestrians. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process, dealing with an application for a residential development near her home. Part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation into the rest of the complaint, and the Council has made the planning decision Mrs X sought.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.

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

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action over neighbours who park caravans on their driveways. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr F complains about the Council’s planning application validation process. There was some fault in complaint handling but this has not caused injustice to Mr F. The Council has agreed to review its complaint procedure.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council failed to follow its own policies or consider the impact on her property when it granted planning permission for a house to be built behind her property. Mrs B says the new house is overbearing, she had to move and has been unable to sell her property. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of building control matters regarding her loft conversion. This is because some of the events complained of are late. In addition, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for its more recent actions. And an investigation by is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We have stopped our investigation into Mr X’s complaint as he took too long to complain about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a residential development. We have also found no fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about a temporary road built to allow construction work to take place.

Summary: Mr and Mrs F complain the Council failed to properly determine an application for prior approval of a change of use of buildings next to their home. They say as a result they will suffer increased noise and traffic, have been caused stress and have wasted money objecting to the application. The Council has accepted there was fault in processing the application and has already apologised. This is a sufficient remedy.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for a development next to his home. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way it reached its decision to grant planning permission.

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 affecting its decision.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the planning advice she received from the Council. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault and there is no evidence of significant injustice to Mrs X.

Summary: The Ombudsman has stopped our investigation into Mr X’s complaint as he took too long to complain about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a residential development. The development also caused no direct injustice to Mr X. We have also found no fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about a temporary road built to allow construction work to take place.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered his neighbours’ planning applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we do not consider Mr X suffered any injustice because of errors that may have occurred in dealing with applications that were refused. And we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s consideration of the approved application.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly consider his concerns about the position of his boundary on plans to develop neighbouring land. 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 how the Council dealt with planning applications for a new residential property in his area. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Even if there were fault, there is not enough evidence of the matter causing a significant personal injustice to Mr X to justify the Ombudsman’s further involvement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his planning application. Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the basis of the delay. He also may appeal the Council’s recent decision to refuse the application. It is not unreasonable for Mr X to use or have used these formal appeal rights.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response as a statutory consultee on 2 planning applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the injustice is speculative as the planning applications have been refused.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council, in granting planning permission to a neighbouring property, failed to consider the impact the development would have on her. The Council failed to consider the impact on light to a habitable room when granting planning permission for a two-storey extension. It is likely if the Council had properly considered the impact on that window it would not have granted planning permission for the development proposed. An apology to Mrs B and for the Council to fund installation of a light tube to reinstate some of the lost light to the bedroom is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council was at fault when dealing with a listed building in need of repair and gave poor advice before an application for listed building consent. The Ombudsman cannot investigate because the complaint is outside his jurisdiction. The owner has appealed the Council’s refusal decision to the planning inspector.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning and enforcement matters relating to a property he converted into flats. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and the availability of appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with an alleged breach of planning control at his property. The Ombudsman finds that the Council’s communications about this matter were not clear enough and that this led to injustice for Mr B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and to pay him £250.

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 affecting its decision.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was wrong to discharge a condition attached to a planning application. And if failed to monitor compliance with pre-commencement obligations. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council made its decision to grant planning permission for his neighbour’s extension. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in the planning process to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for 2 new dwellings to the rear of his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to consider the impact of a neighbour’s extension on her property and failed to consult on amended plans. The Council is at fault for not recording its decision not to conduct further consultation and for lack of transparency in its decision making. The Council should apologise to Miss X and take action to improve its service.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Authority’s handling of a planning application for a housing development in her locality. The Ombudsman has found no evidence there was significant fault by the Authority.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because part of the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council affecting its decisions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to advise him about work required to address a leak and damp at his listed property. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his listed building consent application as it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Summary: Mr C says the Council was at fault for failures to enforce planning decisions concerning agricultural waste processing units close to his house. He says he has suffered injustice because he has incurred costs and the unit has caused unpleasant noise and smells which disturb his enjoyment of his home. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint. The facts upon which the complaint is based have already been considered by the planning inspectorate.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a site near the complainant’s business or how it has dealt with breaches of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and the Ombudsman cannot yet determine if the complainant has suffered injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s approval of plans for a climbing frame in a nearby park which he says overlooks his property. Subject to any comments Mr X might make, my view is that 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 about the Council approving a neighbour’s application for a garage and its enforcement action against breaches of the 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 the Council’s decision to charge the complainant for a Community Infrastructure Levy. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council. The complainant also had a right of appeal if she disagreed with the Council’s calculations.

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.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or a possible breach of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault with the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr J’s complaint against the Council about the way it considered a planning application for a housing development on land to the rear of his home. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed this application before granting consent.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to unauthorised building works close to his property. 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: Miss X complained the Council has taken no formal enforcement action after she had reported that her neighbour had not built his extension according to the approved plan. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely that we would find fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not act against an alleged breach of planning control by his neighbour. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, there is not enough injustice and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not considering the substantive issue.

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: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or its decision to accept a retrospective application from the developer. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning matters relating to his neighbour’s extension works which encroach over the boundary between their properties. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council’s decisions on certain planning and licensing applications are affected by bias, causing her distress, outrage and financial loss. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision making.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council has failed to take enforcement action against the illegal dumping of waste material on their neighbour’s property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The complainant says the Council allowed itself to be misled by a developer when it granted planning permission for a new house on the site next to his home. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered a significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not comply with recommendations made by the Ombudsman following an investigation of his previous complaint. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr and Mrs E’s complaint concerns the Council’s decision to approve planning permission for a house next to their own. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in how the Council weighed the impact the new house would have on their home.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because Mr X has appealed against the Council’s decision to refuse his application.