Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application, failed to follow the right process, failed to word a planning condition properly and showed bias when approving the planning application. There is no fault in how the Council considered the planning application.

Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mr X’s planning application. This is because Mr X has a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. Mr X can also contact the Information Commissioner’s Office if he is not satisfied with the Council’s response regarding an alleged data protection breach.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out enforcement action over an unauthorised forestry business since 2009. Mr X says this caused he and his family physical and mental stress due to noise from machinery and inhalation of smoke from large fires. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. The Ombudsman does find fault with the Council responding to Mr X’s complaint 20 weeks late. The Council agreed to provide Mr X with an apology, a payment of £100 and provide training to its staff on complaint handling.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint alleging fault in its handling of planning applications for the construction of dog kennels at a property.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to take enforcement action against a breach of a condition by a developer. There was fault by the Council because of unreasonable delay before it concluded its planning enforcement investigation. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged the Council granted planning permission for a development contrary to its local plan policies and without considering the cumulative effect of new developments on flooding in the local area.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to respond properly to complaints he raised about a licenced premises. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint as it is more than 12 months since Mr X received a final response from the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge a landscaping planning condition on a nearby development. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to enforce against a developer for some of the bollards installed on the estate where she lives. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way they made their decision to warrant our investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint.

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

Summary: Ms X complains about planning permission granted for a development near her. We will not investigate this complaint because the planning permission was granted by a body out of jurisdiction and the matter is out of time.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a new house in his neighbour’s garden. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr B’s complaint against the Council of it failing to tell him, when he applied for planning consent, that works already started by the previous owner meant this was a part retrospective application which in turn meant he was ineligible for Community Infrastructure Levy relief. The fault caused no injustice to Mr B.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y and Ms W that the Council made a flawed decision when it approved plans for development close to their home. He says the Council did not properly consider the impact on light and wrongly approved the development despite it failing the relevant tests. We find the Council made a decision which was not impacted by fault. The errors in a daylight study had no bearing on the decision made, and the other issues raised by Mr X are matters of professional judgement which, in the absence of procedural fault, the Ombudsman cannot question.

Summary: We have found fault by the Council in its handling of planning matters for a site adjacent to Mr X’s property. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £250 to recognise the injustice caused to him.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s development without consulting him. The Ombudsman found the Council was not at fault.

Summary: We 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 we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in relation to the complainant’s request to remove his land from the Green Belt. This is because parts of the complaint are late and we are unlikely to find fault with the remaining issues. We also cannot investigate the actions of the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: Mr X complains for a parish council about the way the Council processed a planning application. We cannot investigate this complaint because it is made by a public body.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with applications to change the use of a building near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for development at a property adjacent to her property. We will not investigate the complaint because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application for a site close to his home. We will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Summary: I have stopped my investigation into Ms X’s complaint about development of houses of multiple occupation in her area. The Council is currently in the process of deciding whether to remove permitted development rights for these developments in its area and the Council has no powers to control the number of developments taking place in an area at any one time.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to take planning enforcement action swiftly enough to prevent unauthorised development at a site near to her property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed in investigating her concerns about works undertaken at a neighbour’s property. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council investigated Mrs X’s complaints about works carried out by her neighbour.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her planning application. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.