Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with his concerns about breaches of planning conditions at a café near to his home. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action in respect of a neighbouring extension built without planning permission which he says affects his privacy. The Council considered the impact of the extension on Mr X’s residential amenity and used its professional judgement to decide enforcement action is not expedient. There is no fault in how the Council reached that decision.

Summary: Mr X, on behalf of Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum (OONF), complained the Council did not formally adopt the scheme of delegation with the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC). He also complains the Council has spent section 106 monies generated by planning applications in the OPDC area in other areas of the Borough meaning much needed infrastructure improvements have not been delivered. The Council has now formally adopted the scheme of delegation and it would not be proportionate to now investigate any failure to do this in 2015. Any complaint about specific misuse of section 106 money should be made to the relevant planning authority in the first instance.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council sent her a misleading letter and Liability Notice and as a consequence wrongly made her liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) of over £20,000, for a self build development which should be exempt. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made Mrs X liable and sought to recover the CIL due on her property.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council decided her first planning application. Ms X was aware of her Planning Inspectorate appeal and could have used it to obtain the permission she sought. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process when deciding her second application for the same property. Ms X has used her Planning Inspectorate appeal right, which takes the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s delay in determining a third party’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 about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission to changes to the façade of a locally listed building. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. Other changes to the building are the subject of an ongoing enforcement case in which we cannot intervene.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with and decided to grant her neighbour’s planning permission for a development including a garden room. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants from her complaint.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s outbuilding. 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 two planning applications for residential developments. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the property next to his parent’s home. We do not intend to investigate this complaint as further investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation or lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to follow its own procedures when it agreed to the appropriation of an area of land to allow a planning development to take place. We will not investigate the complaint because the alleged fault has not caused Mr X injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the location the Council chose to build new public toilets and about a lack of public consultation. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault for not holding public consultation. However, this failure did not affect the outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate the complainant’s concerns about the Council’s failure to put its Environmental Impact Assessment screening options on its planning register. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant.

Summary: We found no fault in how the Council reached its planning and enforcement decisions about development near Mr X’s home.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council wrongly signed off her building work as compliant with the Building Regulations. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Miss X.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly respond to a planning enforcement report he made. There was fault by the Council. The Council should reconsider Mr X’s report and explain its decision properly. It should also make a payment to recognise the time and trouble Mr X was put to in bringing a complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action over a neighbour’s development which he says breaches the approved plans. We will not exercise discretion investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period because there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now. It concerns matters which Mr X complained about to us in 2013 and for which it was reasonable to seek a civil remedy in the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council has dealt with planning breaches near the complainant’s home. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a site close to the complainants home. This is because the complaint is late, and we cannot achieve the outcome that the complainant wants.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council completed an inadequate review of a planning application for the property next to his. Mr X says the proposed extension will have a significant impact on his privacy and amenity. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no significant personal injustice caused to her that would warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr and Ms X complain that the Council refuses to refund a planning application fee. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s involvement with a development company and possible losses caused to the Council. We will not investigate this complaint because this affects all or most of the population of the area.

Summary: Ms X complains about delays by the Council in dealing with her planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because she could appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for a development of houses. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice caused to him to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to comply with planning approval at a site it owns. The Council was at fault for failing to investigate or respond to Mrs X’s allegation about the breach of planning approval. It has agreed to apologise for the avoidable frustration that caused her and investigate the allegation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council would not take action about a tree owned by a third party causing damage on his property. Mr X also complained the Council would not comment on a planning matter. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint because Mr X can take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve the change of use of a building next to his home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council granted planning permission to complete renovation works to increase the number of HMO tenants at the property neighbouring hers from six to nine. Ms X complained the Council did not adequately consider the concerns she raised about the impact on her privacy and amenity and on the residential character of the road. The Ombudsman does not find the fault by the Council caused an injustice to Ms X.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled a planning application for a glazed door as it approved the plan before the end of the consultation period. This did not cause any significant injustice to Mr X, so no remedy is necessary.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s decision to recommend approval of a planning application to make permanent an earlier temporary permission for a commercial garage near her home, and about the planning committee’s decision to grant the permission. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to warrant our investigating.

Summary: I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions prior to its decisions not to pursue enforcement action against the complainant’s neighbour. The Council investigated the complaint and confirmed not all matters in the enforcement notice were completed. However, it told the complainant it would not take further action as the main issue in the Enforcement Notice had been complied with. And the decking is not raised, and the harm caused (if any) is insignificant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to the complainant’s property by works to a nearby development. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would achieve the outcome the complainant wants. The complainant can also seek a remedy in court for the claimed injustice.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s planning application. We do not intend to investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning obligation it agreed prior to a decision on a planning appeal made to the Planning Inspector. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council which caused him injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal of his planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because he can appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly advised him to apply for planning permission for an existing permitted development, sited on his property. Mr X also complained about how the Council handled the entire planning application and his complaint about it. We have discontinued our investigation. This is because the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.