Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it considered a planning application near to Mr X’s property.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to notify her of a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X, as Chairperson of a residents’ action group, complained the Council failed to follow the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure flood risk is not increased. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. It properly considered the issues in the terms of an outline application and met the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework by adding conditions to ensure the risk of flooding does not increase when the reserved matters application is considered.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably imposed a need for a bat survey as part of a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault and there would be a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her neighbour’s planning application and how it reached its decision to grant permission. Mrs X said this led to loss of sunlight to her property and caused her distress. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with and made its decision to grant the planning permission.

Summary: A woman complained about the failure of the Council’s Building Control service to take action about a flue at her neighbour’s property which she said contravened the Building Regulations. But we do not have grounds to investigate this matter because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to the removal of a wall or safety concerns raised about a development near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleges it failed to hold the owner of a caravan park to account for various breaches of the site conditions.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged it did not act in the public interest or behave as a competent local planning authority when it acted as a statutory consultee to a masterplan for a certain development.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleges it consistently failed to adhere to a planning policy agreed in 2007 when it considered various planning applications for developments in the local area.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging a Councillor abused his position to get planning permission. There is not enough evidence of fault which warrants investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to grant planning permission for development close to the complainants’ 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: Ms X complains about how the Council has dealt with her neighbour’s planning applications and its offer of £2000 to remedy its faults in the consideration of an earlier planning application. There is no fault in how the Council reached its decisions not to take enforcement action when it refused a retrospective planning application and no fault in its decision to consider a further planning application. There is also no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision that planning permission for the development is valid. The payment of £2000 is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s fault in the consideration of the earlier planning application. However, the Council is at fault for failing to explain the basis for its payment and for failing to manage Ms X’s expectations. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X for this fault.

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to act when his neighbour did not comply with a condition on a planning permission and failed to take enforcement action when his neighbour erected a building without planning permission. There is no fault in the Council’s enforcement actions. The Council failed to ensure the applicant provided a timescale for completion of drainage works when it discharged a condition. An apology is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to explain and document why it granted planning permission for a new home. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council because its decision notes lack detail. He has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because there is no significant injustice caused to Mr D.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has taken enforcement action for breaches of planning control at a development near to his property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council has taken enforcement action for breaches of planning control at a development near to her property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the way the Council has taken enforcement action for breaches of planning control at a development near to her property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application to amend an approved plan. The Council’s decision to allow an amended plan has been superseded by a more recent decision. We ended our investigation as it is unlikely to result in a finding of fault, or of a significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the way the Council has taken enforcement action for breaches of planning control at a development near to their property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the way the Council has taken enforcement action for breaches of planning control at a development near to his property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Authority failed to ensure compliance with planning conditions on a neighbouring development site. They say their land is at risk of flooding if there is an extreme weather event. There is no evidence of fault in how the Authority determined the planning applications and breaches of conditions on the first planning application have mostly been resolved by the approval of a second planning application. There is fault by the Authority in that it has delayed determining a planning application submitted in August 2019 but this has not resulted in a significant injustice to Mr and Mrs X.

Summary: Mr X complained the Authority failed to ensure compliance with planning conditions on a neighbouring development site. He says his land is at risk of flooding if there is an extreme weather event. There is no evidence of fault in how the Authority determined the planning applications and any breaches of conditions on the first planning application have mostly been resolved by the approval of a second planning application. There is fault by the Authority in that it has delayed determining a planning application submitted in August 2019 but this has not resulted in a significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Mrs D wants the Authority to attach a notice to a planning condition relating to a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation. He cannot achieve the main outcome sought by Mrs D and there is no injustice at present to warrant further investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take enforcement action against the owner of the sports club adjacent to his house. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant used his right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. The complainant can seek a remedy in court if he believes the Council has been negligent.

Summary: Mr X complains a Council officer tried to push through a planning permission. he says the officer also failed to prepare accurate minutes, and resisted Councillors attempts to correct them. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has not yet granted planning permission and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to follow its own procedure when it decided not to read out written statements at a committee meeting from objectors to a planning application. We will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to require a planning application for demolishing a veranda. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants investigating.

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 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. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X consent to develop his land. This is because Mr X has a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector and the Council has now notified him of that right.

Summary: Mr and Mrs C complain when processing a planning application the Council failed to refer the case to the planning committee for decision, failed to properly consider the application and the impact it would have on surrounding properties, failed to keep site visit notes, failed to respond to Mr and Mrs C’s communications and conducted an unclear decision-making process. There is no fault in how the Council considered the planning application. The Council produced three versions of the report but that did not affect the overall decision.