Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact on her amenity when it granted planning permission at a neighbouring property. We find fault with the Council for failing to evidence its decision making. We also found some fault in its complaint handling. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice to Mrs B.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mr K’s complaint about it failing to act against the owners of a plot of land in the green belt near his home on which machinery and rubble, for example, are stored. The Council investigated his reports, contacted the site owner, and visited the site before deciding formal action is not required.

Summary: Ms X complains of damage caused by the Council when developing a neighbouring property. We will not investigate this complaint because this can be more appropriately determined by the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to grant planning permission for development near 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 Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s preapplication advice on a proposed development indicates it would refuse planning permission. There is no injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s lack of enforcement of planning conditions which affect parking in the area. We will not investigate this complaint because the injustice claimed is not sufficient to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has not met with him or acted on his complaints about noise from a nearby airport. He says the airport is in breach of its planning obligations and its measurement of noise levels is inaccurate. Mr Y says noise from the airport means he cannot sleep. At this stage, the Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council investigated the matter. We find fault in delays responding to Mr Y but this did not cause a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning applications. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting its decisions or of significant injustice to Ms X from her concerns about the accuracy of the plans.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to notify the complainant about a planning application for a development near her home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The application outcome has not been affected by the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. Part of the complaint is late and there is no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decisions.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s inadequate investigation and failure to take enforcement action against development near his home. We found no fault in how the Council responded to the breach of planning control reported by Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs B’s planning application. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs B to put in an appeal to the planning inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requiring Mr X to pay an affordable housing contribution. This is because he has right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s application for prior approval of an extension. There was fault with the Council’s handling of contacts from Mr X. But this fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice that warrants further pursuit of the complaint by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a new dwelling on a site close to his home. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate the complaint from Mr X, a parish council chairman, about the Council’s role in a developer not providing an equipped playground as part of a planning agreement. The law does not allow us to accept complaints made by authorities constituted for the purposes of public service. This includes parish councils.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against his neighbours for breach of planning control and a control of pollution notice. He also complained the Council did not evidence that his neighbour’s development complied with building regulations. Mr B said this has impacted his and his wife’s health because they are worried the outbuilding is a fire risk. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: Mr X has made a complaint on behalf of all villagers in his local area. He says the Council has included an area of land in an adopted local development plan which is incompatible with national planning policy. Mr X wants the Council to remove the site from the plan. We are unlikely to find fault by the Council. For that reason, we cannot tell the Council to remove the site from the plan as we have no power to question the merits of a properly made decision. Further, we do not consider Mr X has suffered serious loss, harm or distress by reason of any fault by the Council. For these reasons, we are discontinuing our investigation.

Summary: Mrs D complains the Council did not properly assess the impact of a neighbour’s proposed extension on her property when it granted planning permission. We have found no fault.

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.