Summary: Mr X complains the Council acted to favour a company involved in providing a service to a planning applicant because the company carried out some volunteer work to the benefit of the Council. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council will not take Building Regulations Enforcement against the developer who built his property. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council refuses to take planning enforcement action against a developer. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and the matter is out of time.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed in responding to his enquiries. Also, it will not specify what work to his listed building requires Listed Building Consent. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has apologised for the delay which is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. And concerns about his application for Listed Building Consent are outside our jurisdiction as Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a neighbour’s extension. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant personal injustice and part of the complaint is out of time.

Summary: Mr X complains about planning permission for a neighbour’s property and the service of an enforcement notice upon him. We will not investigate this complaint because he has a right of appeal against the notice and the planning permission is out of time.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to send a Planning Inspector all necessary documents to support their refusal of a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because the decision to grant planning permission was by a Planning Inspector who is out of jurisdiction.

Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it misunderstood the permitted development rules when considering a prior approval application. This caused an injustice to the complainant, which it has agreed to remedy. However, with regard to the other issues raised by the complainant, we have either found no fault, or have discontinued our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with applications to build vehicle crossovers on the road where the complainant lives. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application that will allow vehicle access over a track. We ended our investigation as it is unlikely to result in finding a significant fault or an injustice that we can remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of a residents’ group about the Council’s failure to control a telecommunications mast proposed on land near their homes. Based on the information seen so far, there was fault in the way the Council acted which it agreed to remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or its decision to charge the complainant a Community Infrastructure Levey. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. The complainant could also have appealed to the Valuation Office Agency if he disagreed with the Council’s calculations for the Community Infrastructure Levey.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consultation process for a new Supplementary Planning Document. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a gas pipe being installed in the area where the complainant lives. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and cannot yet say if the complainant has been caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice by the alleged fault.

Summary: Mrs Z, a planning representative, complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against breaches of planning and building control by a developer. The Council was not at fault in how it handled the planning control matter. This is because it properly investigated the alleged breach and used its discretion to decide not to take formal enforcement action. However, the Council has acknowledged it did not investigate the alleged breach of building control. Nor did it respond to Mrs Z’s complaint on this matter. This is fault. To remedy this the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs Z and provide a response regarding this matter.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s planning application. We 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: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, made on behalf of his daughter Miss X, about the Council’s decision not to enforce against an extension built by Miss X’s neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it reached its discretionary enforcement decision to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The complainants say the Council failed to follow the correct process when it granted planning permission for their neighbour’s extension. We will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor is it likely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve planning permission at a site it owns. We find the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr X complains about delays by the Council in a planning enforcement matter. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient personal injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint, made on behalf of a Parish Council, about the Borough Council’s consideration of and decision on a planning application. We cannot investigate complaints made by public bodies such as parish councils.

Summary: We do not propose investigating Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not deal properly with his planning application. The reasons are in the analysis section below.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with and decided his planning application. Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. This takes Council involvement in the planning process outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to protect his property from damage and trespass by its contractors. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has considered a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because the planning application has not yet been determined and so any injustice is speculative.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision to approve their neighbour’s planning application to extend a basement. We should not investigate this complaint further as we are unlikely to find fault or evidence that shows the outcome would have been different.