Summary: Ms X complains North Yorkshire County Council and Harrogate Borough Council have failed to take action to bring roads on her estate up to adoptable standard. My initial view is I should stop my investigating into this complaint as Ms X has not been caused an injustice by the actions of Harrogate Borough Council or North Yorkshire County Council. She and other residents would have been aware that no highways agreements were in place when the purchased their properties as well as the planning conditions attached to the development.

Summary: Ms X complains North Yorkshire County Council and Harrogate Borough Council have failed to take action to bring roads on her estate up to adoptable standard. My initial view is I should stop my investigating into this complaint as Ms X has not been caused an injustice by the actions of Harrogate Borough Council or North Yorkshire County Council. She and other residents would have been aware that no highways agreements were in place when the purchased their properties as well as the planning conditions attached to the development.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council’s consideration of a planning application to build two semi-detached cottages. Mrs C said she and her neighbours would suffer from an unacceptable development which would harm their amenity and the character of the Conservation Area. We found fault in the decision-making process. However, there was no injustice to Mrs C or her neighbours because the Ombudsman cannot say that, but for the fault, the outcome would have been different.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to search its systems properly causing her permitted development to be investigated twice. She also complained the Council failed to protect her personal details, comply with data protection rules or consider her complaint properly. We uphold Mrs B’s complaint and find the Council put her to the time and trouble of complaining and caused her distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her the sum of £100 for the injustice caused and share this decision with its staff.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to recognise errors on plans when it approved a planning application for a new house next to his home. We cannot consider this complaint as the decision to approve the application was made by the Planning Inspectorate which is not within our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about its decision to grant his neighbour planning permission for a raised patio in 2016. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the change of use of a barn to a dwelling. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. Nor has the alleged fault caused Mr Q or his heritage society a significant injustice. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Q wants.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about its decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of a noise condition.

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to consider the impact on his home of a boundary garden wall shown in his neighbour’s planning application leaving him with an overbearing structure and sense of enclosure. The Council says it made an error. However, having reviewed the decision it believes the decision is sound and it has made at least one other similar decision. We find the Council at fault but that this did not affect the final decision. However, it did result in inconvenience to the complainant and a loss of confidence in the Council’s planning decision procedure.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in considering a planning application which Mr B says caused him financial loss in the form of a new levy. However, the Council has confirmed an exemption was granted for Mr B’s development meaning the levy is not payable. The Ombudsman has therefore completed the investigation with a finding of fault, but which has not caused injustice to Mr B.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning applications. The Council did not grant planning permission for the neighbour’s extension and I have seen no evidence of fault in its handling of their application to vary the approved plans.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to change the building to residential use. We ended our investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of significant fault or injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to use its building control powers to protect her amenity. Ms X also complained about the Council’s refusal to investigate her complaint. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its building control decisions, but there was fault in the way it handled her complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy the fault I have found.

Summary: The complainant says the Council’s Silica Sand Acquisition Procedures are not compliant with lawful requirements. And the Council has failed to decide on applications to modify the definitive map. We will not investigate this complaint as the Council is reviewing the Local Plan which includes the Silica Sand Acquisition Procedures, and it is reasonable for Mr B to follow that process. And he can ask the Secretary of State to instruct the Council to decide on the definitive map modification applications.

Summary: The complainant says the Council is harassing him and his wife about planning enforcement. 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. Finally, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application and its decision to grant permission. We will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour for erecting a 1.8 metre fence on the boundary with his property. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a plot of land Mr Q bought at auction which he is unable to develop. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council granted planning permission for a neighbour’s extension too close to his house. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a site near the complainant’s home. This is because one of the applications has been subject to court proceedings and therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The complainant has not been caused significant injustice by the more recent issues she has complained about.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to take a strategic view when granting planning permission for applications in residential areas. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or a breach of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late and we are unlikely to find fault with the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B say the Council has failed to properly process a planning application for a residential development next to their home. Mr and Mrs B say this has caused them a loss of privacy, distress and uncertainty. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to upload certain application documents onto its website in time. But, the Ombudsman does not find that this fault caused Mr and Mrs B significant injustice. The Ombudsman does not uphold the remaining parts of the complaint as the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr B and Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of two planning applications. They also complained about the Council’s handling of their complaints about that.

Summary: Mr B and Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of two planning applications. They also complained about the Council’s handling of their complaints about that. We find no significant injustice was caused by the handling of the first planning application, and no fault in the handling of the second planning application. We find there was fault in complaint handling, causing injustice for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s neighbour’s prior approval application. The Council misread a height measurement which led to a procedural error. Mr X experienced an injustice as a result of this error for which the Council has agreed a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund her planning application fee. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s record keeping in relation to pre-application planning advice it gave to a developer. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant personal injustice because of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement as a highways consultee on a planning application for a new development and junction near his property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control matter. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: Mr 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.