Summary: Mr R complains on behalf of a residents’ association that the Council has installed a crossover on a footpath which is unsafe for pedestrians, the visually impaired, the elderly and other users of the path. He says this has caused injustice as those using the path are in danger of injury. Because the Ombudsman cannot reach the decision or the remedy Mr R wants whereas the Magistrates’ Court can, we have discontinued our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application to replace their Scout Hut with a new shared building. We found there was some fault. However, we concluded the outcome of the planning application was unlikely to have been different, had that fault not occurred.

Summary: Ms D says the Council failed to consider lower cost quotes for the demolition of a property. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Summary: Mr D says the Council has incorrectly approved parking for a housing scheme near his home. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider the effects on his solar panels when approving planning permission. There was no fault in how the Council considered the effect on Mr X’s solar panels. There was fault in how the Council explained its ability to control the development, but this did not cause an injustice to Mr X.

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

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with planning applications for development near the complainant’s’ home. Part of the complaint is made too late and it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault causing the complainant significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development near his home. 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: Mrs B complained the Council granted planning permission for a school to develop its site without considering an objection from an environmental health officer. She said the school’s vehicle access near her property has been used more since. Mrs B said this has increased pollution, damaged her property, and lowered its value. We found fault with the Council’s complaint response. The Council had already taken suitable action to remedy any injustice to Mrs B.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to notify Mr X about his neighbour’s planning application, however this has not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: The Council has accepted it lost Mrs D’s objection letter to a neighbour’s extension. This meant prior approval was not required for the extension, causing distress and an adverse impact on Mrs D’s amenity if the extension is built. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs D to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s planning decisions in relation to development that is near land he owns. We ended our investigation as it is unlikely we would find significant fault or an injustice to Mr X that we could remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for developments near the complainant’s home. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could achieve the outcome the complainant wants. The complainant can also seek a remedy in court for the claimed injustice.

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.

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

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with enforcement relating to the planning permission for a development near his home. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not properly dealt with planning permission or enforcement action regarding a development near her home. The Council was at fault because it delayed looking at Mrs X’s complaint about unauthorised development. The Council has already paid Mrs X £1000. I consider this a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council knew her retrospective planning application would be refused but did not advise her of this before she submitted it. 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 this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council decided his neighbour’s planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered and determined the application under delegated officer decision‑making powers, or of the Council misleading Mr X that the planning committee would decide the application, to justify us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for planning permission to install a dropped kerb. This is because Ms X has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and so the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to revoke her neighbours planning permission. The Council accepted its decision was flawed and permission should not have been granted. The Ombudsman found the Council was entitled to decide not to revoke planning permission, but it agreed to provide Ms X a remedy for the impact of its fault.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided a planning application to extend a neighbouring house. Ms B is concerned the plans are wrong, but the Council took its assessment from several site visits. The Council applied its planning policy and properly assessed the impact on Ms B’s daylight.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council charging his client for a new application following its refusal of a permitted development application. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council is responsible for a defective sewer connection from his home to the public sewer system. We will not investigate this complaint. We cannot decide whether the Council is liable for the error and if so whether it should pay damages. This is a matter for the courts.