Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council has monitored compliance with planning conditions on a development site next to Mr X’s home.

Summary: Mr X said the Council considered inaccurate plans that wrongly led it to believe development near his home complied with local planning policy when it did not. Mr X said the Council’s flawed decision to grant planning permission led to an overbearing development that adversely affected his living conditions. We found fault in the Council’s decision making but this had not caused Mr X significant direct injustice. There was also avoidable delay by the Council in responding to Mr X’s complaint about the development. We found the Council’s apologies and payment of £150 had suitably addressed any frustration and distress such delay caused Mr X.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to take appropriate action in respect of non-compliance with planning permission for development near to his home. We found no fault by the Council in terms of the substantive planning matters associated with this complaint. However, there was fault in the Council’s communications with Mr B about the matter and in its handling of his complaint. Those faults led to injustice for Mr B, for which a remedy has been agreed.

Summary: Mrs X said the Council considered inaccurate plans that wrongly led it to believe development near her home complied with local planning policy when it did not. Mrs X said the Council’s flawed decision to grant planning permission led to an overbearing development and loss of light that adversely affected her living conditions. We found that, while there was fault by the Council, it did not affect its decision to grant planning permission. We also found avoidable delay by the Council in responding to Mrs X’s complaint about the development. The Council’s apologies and payment of £250 had suitably addressed any frustration and distress such delay caused Mrs X.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: This complaint concerns the Council’s issuing of a planning enforcement notice. We will not investigate as the complainant had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered a reserved matters application for housing on a large development near Mr B’s home. It properly considered and addressed the issues raised by the public, and took into account national and local planning policy when it decided to grant planning permission.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council gave him wrong advice when he extended his outbuilding in 2014. 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: Mr X complains about planning applications made by his neighbour. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice caused to him to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to send him notice of a planning application to convert a neighbouring property to a 24-hour gym. Mr X also complained the Council failed to take enough action to reduce the noise caused by the gym in line with the planning conditions. Mr X says the Council’s actions have prevented him from having fair opportunity to comment on the planning application and the noise caused disturbs him during the night and day. The Ombudsman found fault with the failure of the Council to consult Mr X as part of the planning process and failure to verify the gym’s compliance with planning conditions. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to complete an acoustic assessment from Mr X’s block of flats.

Summary: We have not investigated Mr B’s complaint that the Council did not properly consider whether a development would increase the risk of flooding to his property, or whether the ground levels had been materially raised contrary to planning permission granted in 2015. This is because he did not bring the matter to the Ombudsman in time. We will not investigate the issues because the complaint is late and there is no reason why Mr B could not have complained sooner.

Summary: The Ombudsman exercised discretion to discontinue the investigation of Mr W’s complaint about the time taken for the Council to decide it would not pursue a second revocation order after it mistakenly issued him with a decision notice granting consent for a residential development. This is because there is no outstanding injustice to him even if there was fault.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's consideration of a planning application to build a two storey extension next to his property. Mr X said the development would harm his amenity and the character of the Conservation Area. We found fault in the decision making process but cannot say that, but for the fault, the outcome would have been different. However, it did result in inconvenience to Mr X and a loss of opportunity to object to the planning application.

Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to take planning enforcement action and did not properly consider a retrospective planning application for a change of use next to his home. We have found that delay in determining the application caused Mr D an injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to acknowledge this. There was no fault in the enforcement or way the Council determined the application.

Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for development next to his home. There was no fault by the Council in this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a highway improvement scheme near the complainant’s home. This is because parts of the complaint are late. It is unlikely we would find fault with the remaining issues complained about and it is not yet possible to say if the complainant has suffered any injustice in relation to the Council’s handling of a planning application.

Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council failed to publicise a neighbour’s planning application. And it has not acted on a breach of planning control. We will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council publicised the planning application and decided not to take enforcement action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications and unauthorised works. This is because parts of the complaint are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. It is unlikely we would find fault with the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice and its handling of her applications for planning permission. There is no evidence of fault in the pre-application advice and if Mrs X disputes the Council’s decisions it would be reasonable for her to appeal.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Councils handling of planning and enforcement at a site next to Mr C’s property. We found fault with the way the Council investigated some of the issues. There was also fault with the way it communicated with Ms B. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not taken suitable enforcement action against a developer. He says a road junction is unsafe because the developer is in breach of a planning condition. There is no fault with how the Council handled this case and we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application and its failure to enforce planning controls after construction work began. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning and enforcement decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that the Council mishandled and refused two retrospective planning applications he put in for a porch. This is because Mr C put in an appeal to the planning inspector against the first decision. Also, it was reasonable for Mr C to put in an appeal against the Council’s refusal of his second application.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint which alleged fault with its decision to approve a neighbour’s planning application for an extension and other alterations to the property.

Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s administration of a planning application appeal. Mr C said the Council did not tell him about the appeal. He says because of this he could not make further representations to the Planning Inspectorate. The Council was at fault for failing to tell Mr C about the appeal. A Judicial Review ordered the Planning Inspectorate to reconsider its decision and Mr C can make representations. This, and the Council’s apology, remedied the injustice caused by the Council’s fault.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that a senior planning officer overruled the view of another planning officer with regard to the impact of a proposed development on the complainant’s home.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about its handling of a planning application for a development close to the complainant’s home.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s consideration of his planning applications since 2019. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because some of the decisions have been subject to appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and are outside our jurisdiction. Mr X had a right to appeal another refused application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation of an application which the Council approved but which he says he cannot implement.

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 in the way the decision was reached.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action for an alleged breach of planning control. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

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.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council refused Mr X’s application for a certificate of lawful development. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspector.