Summary: Mrs B complained about an enforcement investigation undertaken by the Council when she reported a breach of planning control at a neighbouring property and about the way it considered a retrospective planning application by the developer. There was no fault in the Council’s handling of the enforcement investigation. However, we have found fault as we are unable to investigate the way the Council considered the retrospective planning application because relevant records are not available.

Summary: Miss C complained about the Council’s response to her reports of noise nuisance and planning breaches at a neighbouring development site. Miss C says her family suffered noise nuisance, disturbance and loss of privacy from the development during a stay at her property and she could not let the property because of the continuing disturbance. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to grant planning permission for development close to the complainant’s home. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge the complainant for a Community Infrastructure Levy. The complainant had a right of appeal if she disagreed with the Council’s calculations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not take enforcement action against her neighbour. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a Prior Notification application. We do not consider that any fault has caused significant injustice to the person who complained.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council publishing defamatory comments by objectors to his planning application on its planning website. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because only the courts can determine whether the Council is liable for defamation and it is reasonable for him to seek a legal remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s planning application. This is because Ms X has appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate which we would reasonably expect her to use.

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to tell him about receipt of a nonmaterial amendment, wrongly accepted the changes as nonmaterial amendments, delayed placing the nonmaterial amendment on the Council’s website and failed to respond to his complaint properly. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with the complaint. The Council failed to tell Mr B about receipt of the nonmaterial amendment which denied him an opportunity to comment and it delayed putting information on its website and on the planning file. Those faults did not affect the decision on the nonmaterial amendment. An apology, creation of a process to ensure communication between the Council’s enforcement and planning departments and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with planning applications from her neighbour. We will not investigate this complaint because the complaint is out of time.

Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to notify him about a planning application to make changes to a retail site near his property or properly consider the impact on his amenity. Mr D says he lost his opportunity to make representations and suffered unacceptable levels of noise and dust during the works. We have found fault by the Council in its notification but consider the agreed action of an apology provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms X complains abut the way the Council granted planning permission for a development near her. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council responded to his reports of noise and breaches of planning conditions by a supermarket near his home. The Council failed to investigate Mr X’s reports of a possible noise nuisance and failed to ensure the supermarket complied with a legal notice the Council sent it. The Council agreed to properly investigate the reports and decide what action, if any, to take without further delay. It also agreed to pay Mr X £150 for the avoidable time and trouble caused by having to complain.

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 Mrs X’s complaint about the Council officer’s consideration of an application for a new residential development next to her house, or the planning committee’s decision to grant it permission. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to justify us investigating.

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

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider a planning application for a new footpath. He says this will affect his access in an emergency. We did not find fault by the Council.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it considered the potential adverse impact from noise and light when it granted planning permission for a sports pitch near Mr B’s home.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to grant planning permission for development next to the complainant’s home. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision.

Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s failure to take action after he raised concerns that his neighbour is running a business from home. We find the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain fault by the Council means they have incurred a CIL liability. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

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. We will also not investigate the complainant’s concerns about how the Council dealt with an alleged breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Mr X did not receive a CIL Liability Notice and therefore missed the opportunity to appeal. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the actions of the Council associated with development next to her home. We find there was some fault by the Council. The financial remedy already offered by the Council is appropriate, but we made further recommendations for a formal apology and improved communications, as well as a service improvement. The Council agreed to these recommendations.

Summary: We found no fault in how the Council dealt with design quality in deciding to approve details for a development near Mr X’s home.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to investigate his concerns about a change of use, failed to keep him up-to-date and failed to respond to his letter to the Chief Executive. There is no fault in how the Council considered the change of use issues. The Council failed to keep Mr C up-to-date or make clear it had delegated a response to his letter to the Chief Executive to one of its planning officers. That caused Mr C to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology to Mr C and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: There was fault in the Council’s communication with Mrs X in response to her complaints about planning enforcement. This did not affect the outcome of the planning enforcement matters but has made the situation more difficult for her. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of objections to a planning application on highway grounds.

Summary: Mrs D says the Council should take enforcement action against a neighbour for unauthorised food preparation and storage. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a new housing development near Mr X’s home as he has not been caused an injustice.

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: Mr P and Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to approve their neighbour’s planning application. While there were several errors within the case officer’s report, they did not affect the decision to grant planning permission. For this reason, this fault did not cause a significant injustice to the complainants.

Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council dealt with a planning application in which it had an interest. The Ombudsman discontinued this investigation because Ms X has not suffered a personal injustice to warrant pursuit of the complaint.

Summary: Mr J complains the Council misled the planning committee in how it referred to land for a proposed development next to his property. He says conditions for development on the land have not been met and the proposed development will have a negative impact on his quality of life. There was some fault by the Council in how it presented the information to the planning committee, however this has not caused significant injustice to Mr J.