Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to obtain accurate plans when determining a planning application. 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: The Council has delayed in deciding how to respond to breaches of planning control on land close to Mrs Y. This fault has caused injustice which the Council will remedy with the actions set out at the end of this statement.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y say the Council decided a planning application without following appropriate procedures, policy and practice. There was fault by the Council because it validated the planning application without ensuring the development was within the extent of the declared application site. The identified fault did not cause the complainants significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of the complaint by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mr X says the Council gave incorrect information on permitted development rights to the operator of a quarry with the result that the quarry installed replacement concrete plant without planning permission. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The complaint was closed because the Council took action to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a planning breach. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the time the Council has taken to deal with Mr X’s planning application. This is because he has a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application, which he said will affect solar panels behind his home and business. The Council took account of significant planning considerations, including Mr X’s concerns, before it made its decision, so there was no fault in the decision-making process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council are responsible for damage to the complainants property. This is because the matter of liability can only be determined by insurers or the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in dealing with a planning application. The developer who had a contract with Mr and Mrs X had an appeal right to the planning inspector. It is reasonable for Mr and Mrs X to use the legal remedy of court if they believe the Council was negligent.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council decision not to take enforcement action against a garden screen installed by his neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development near Mr X’s home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about possible land contamination at a development site in the Council’s area. This is because Dr X has not been caused an injustice as a result of the actions of the Council. There are also no wider public interest issues for us to consider arising from this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about various issues concerning the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant has already appealed to the Planning Inspector, so we have no legal remit to investigate.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action to secure compliance with an enforcement notice and misled him about the degree to which action had been taken. There was some delay in the Council’s actions, but we found this did not lead to significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council decided an application for development adjacent to her property. We found no fault in the way the Council decided the application.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about lack of planning enforcement action by the Council. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning decisions about a patio in a sports club’s grounds, installed next to his property in 2016. The Council’s decision not to accept an officer made planning errors, and to not give Mr X the apologies he wants, does not cause him such significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating. There is no different outcome, related to Mr X’s claimed injustice, now achievable by us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council’s officers and its planning committee assessed and decided a change-of-use application for a house in his road. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because the injustice he claims is the result of his neighbour’s actions rather than any fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his planning application. This is because Mr B appealed to the planning inspector against the decision.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council granted planning permission for a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). He says the Council failed to properly investigate his objections, failed to follow its own guidelines, and failed to engage with his questions. Mr X says this caused him to lose confidence in the planning process. He says another HMO in the area will increase the potential for antisocial behaviour and parking problems. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for delays updating its HMO database. However, the Ombudsman does not find the fault caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council gave factually incorrect information about the requirements of the building regulations. The Ombudsman found there was fault causing injustice which the Council agreed to remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a house which he says will overlook his home and garden. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with land in its area. This is because the actions of the Council have not caused Mr X an injustice. Parts of the complaint are also late as they occurred more than 12 months ago and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to raise these sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s interpretation of a Deed of Covenant on land close to the complainant’s home. The complaint is late and we have seen no reason to exercise discretion and investigate it now.