Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr K’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of the impact a new hedgerow would have on an adjoining public footpath. The Council considered his reports of obstruction. The law was unlikely to find the temporary structures were obstructions and the path was temporarily closed anyway. The Council also decided there was no obstruction by the hedge’s width on the information it had.

Summary: We should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a block of flats near his home. This is because he has not been caused an injustice significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application from his neighbour for an extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for a dropped kerb. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of his planning application and his planning appeal. We cannot investigate a complaint about matters which have been subject to an appeal to a government minister.

Summary: There is no fault with the Council’s actions leading to a development’s approval. It considered and addressed Mr X’s concerns about separation distances and loss of privacy. We have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr B complained that, in granting planning permission for an extension to his neighbour’s property, the Council failed to properly consider the impact on his amenity resulting in loss of privacy. We found no fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: The complainant says the Council have failed to enforce a planning condition on his neighbour’s development. We will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s actions. It is also unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council extending the village boundary within the Local Plan without giving sufficient information to Government Planning Inspector. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Planning Inspector was responsible for obtaining sufficient evidence for his inquiry and approval of the plan.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s planning permission for a development. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of and the planning committee’s decision on an application for a development opposite his house. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s or committee’s processes to justify us investigating. Even if there were fault by the Council or the committee, the matter has not caused significant personal injustice to Mr X which would warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council wrongly approved building work which did not meet the building regulations. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants.

Summary: The complainants complained the Council failed to exercise its planning enforcement powers as promised before an unauthorised building gained immunity from enforcement action. The Council said it followed government guidance by waiting until it had considered planning applications before issuing an enforcement notice. However, it recognised some fault and offered a payment of £250. We found the Council at fault and recommended an increased remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decisions relating to a planning approval of a large extension. Mr X said the new extension affects his privacy in his garden. There was no fault in the decision making processes.

Summary: Mr E complained the Council provided incorrect information to the planning committee about the amount of overlooking into his house. We find the Council was not at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr F’s main complaint of the Council failing to take enforcement action for breaches of planning consent by a nearby business. Nor was it fault to not insist on a new planning application. The Council was entitled to consider revisions under a variation clause. It failed to consider his complaint within the timescale set out by its complaints procedure. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take enforcement action against his neighbour who constructed an outbuilding and began using it to provide services to the public. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision not to take enforcement action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to grant planning permission for development near the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is little likelihood we would find the Council’s decision was affected by fault.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against works done by her neighbour in their garden. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning enforcement process to justify us investigating. We cannot rule on an allegation of Council negligence, which is a matter for the courts to determine.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s interpretation of its local planning policies. This is because Mrs X could appeal to the Planning Inspector if she disagreed with the Council’s view.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of Mr B’s planning applications. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to appeal to the planning inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for Listed Building Consent. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise and a change of use of a shop near the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing to suggest we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains about her dealings with the Council over an outbuilding built by her neighbour initially without planning permission. There was unreasonable delay by the Council in dealing with the planning enforcement complaint. The Council should now apologise to Ms X for the delay.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a large development next door to her home and how it has dealt with her complaints about noise, dust and out of hours construction work. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach to Mrs X’s nuisance complaints. The Council has already apologised for delay in responding to complaints about its service, which was an appropriate remedy for this fault.