Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mrs Y’s complaint about the way it dealt with a neighbour’s planning application. It failed to spot inconsistencies between two sets of plans it approved and the planning report contained some inaccuracies. The fault caused no injustice to her. There was no fault on her remaining complaints about its failure to take enforcement action against the neighbour.

Summary: Mr E complains the Council failed to ensure the development he lived in complied with its planning conditions. He also says the Council did not take enough action against the developer, caused delays, and failed to keep him informed about its enforcement progress. As a result, Mr E says he experienced distress and loss of trust in the Council’s ability to address his concerns. The Council was at fault for its failure to start its enforcement process in late 2018 and the delay this caused. It was not at fault for its handling of the enforcement process, nor how it communicated with Mr E from January 2020. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr E and pay an acknowledgement for the distress and time and trouble it caused him.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a planning breach by their neighbour. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will find evidence of fault and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development next to the complainant’s home. It is unlikely we would find fault affected the Council’s decision.

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

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with a planning application for development close to the complainant’s home. We are unlikely to find fault by the Council caused the complainant significant injustice.

Summary: Mr D complains the Council incorrectly threatened him with planning enforcement action. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Summary: Mrs E complained that the Council had deleted building control records in respect of a development her family had built, without notification and she was unable to obtain a completion certificate for the property. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to specify ground levels on a development site adjacent to his property and failed to take prompt action when he first complained. Mr X says the new properties have been up built up to five metres above existing ground levels and are overbearing and impact his outlook and privacy. The failure to include ground levels was fault but the development does not cause an impact significant enough to warrant refusal of the application. The Council took too long to tell Mr X ground levels had not been specified and this was fault.

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

Summary: Mr X complains about the grant of planning permission for his neighbour to build an outbuilding. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council granted planning permission to his neighbour for the development of land they do not own. There is no evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X’s injustice results from his neighbour’s actions rather than the Council’s.

Summary: Mr X complains of delay by the Council in determining his planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for the use of a swimming pool next to his house. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against a developer who breached planning conditions. Mrs X says this caused her an injustice through the developer removing trees on their boundary, building the property closer to theirs than allowed and taller than allowed. Mrs X says the Council’s delays and failure to act have also caused her distress and anxiety. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council failing to follow its enforcement policy. The Council agreed to provide Mrs X with an apology and £300 to reflect this fault and the subsequent distress and anxiety caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decisions relating to development on her neighbour’s land. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or breaches of planning control. This is because the complaint is late, and it would be reasonable for the complainant to seek a remedy through the courts if she considers the Council has been negligent.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s building control officers. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could add to the Council’s response. The complainant has also not been caused any personal injustice by the matter.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of a company. Mr X said the Council failed to properly publicise or consider a planning application for development on land next to the company’s property. There was some fault in the way the Council made its decision that it should act to remedy.

Summary: There was fault with the Council’s decision to suspend a planning enforcement investigation. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr X through action and a time and trouble payment.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not taken enforcement action about breaches of planning permission and hasn’t responded to other complaints. The Council was not at fault.

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

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged fault in the Council’s handling of planning applications for extensions at a nearby property.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the consideration by the Council’s predecessor authority of a planning application for residential development at the back of her home. In particular she said the first-floor lounge and kitchen mean there is an unacceptable degree of overlooking into her home and garden. There was fault by the Council but that did not alter the decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for development on his neighbour’s land. There was some fault in the way the decision was made that the Council agreed to remedy.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged fault in the Council’s handling of planning applications for extensions at a nearby property.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged fault in the Council’s handling of planning applications for extensions at a nearby property.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for development adjacent to their home, and with their subsequent complaint about that. We find no fault by the Council in the handling of the planning application. We find there was fault in complaint handling, causing injustice for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr and Mrs B’s complaint about its failure to properly investigate their reports of breaches of planning control on a neighbouring housing development site. The Council failed to properly explain how it decided there was no breach following 2 site visits. It failed to identify the higher floor levels and took too long to conclude there was a breach of planning control after all. The agreed action, and the actions the Council has now taken, remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council considered her objections and dealt with a planning application for a development next to a property she owns. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the decision-making process it followed to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council validated his application without checking to make sure his application was of the correct type. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. However even if we were to find fault it is unlikely we could say this caused the injustice Mr X claims.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X and Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control matter. This is because the injustice they claim is the result of the actions of the previous owner of the property and we cannot say the Council should provide a remedy for this.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s poorly drafted planning conditions, which affected his property. We found the Council was at fault as its planning conditions should have been clearer. The Council’s offer to refund half Mr X’s planning application fee reasonably and suitably addressed his stress, time and trouble in dealing with the conditions.