Summary: Mr D complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for development of a GP practice near his home. We have found fault but this has not caused injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for demolition and a replacement building. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a garage near him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing 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: We will not investigate Mr V’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining a planning application and the inconvenience this caused. This is because Mr V had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which we would reasonably have expected him to have used.

Summary: Mr X complains about a 2015 planning decision taken in relation to a business site in his locale and the route taken by HGV traffic to access the site. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Council’s Planning Committee failed to properly explain its reasons for granting planning permission to Mrs X’s neighbour for a residential extension. It also failed to properly deal with her enforcement complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Mr B, make a payment to Mrs X, complete its enforcement investigation and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to take action against a neighbour for erecting a fence. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains about planning permission granted to her neighbour for an extension. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault and part of the matter is out of time.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a large development of houses. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about consultation on a planning matter which took place between 2017 and 2018. This is because the complaint is a late complaint, and it is reasonable to have expected the complainants to have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s demolition of Ms X’s wall and its delayed invoice for the work. This is because the demolition happened too long ago to be investigated now and there is insufficient injustice caused to Ms X by the delayed invoice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints about his neighbour’s building work. This is because any damage caused to Mr X’s property is a civil matter between him and his neighbour.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council responded to reports about planning and safety issues from a neighbour’s building site during the first COVID-19 national lockdown. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s investigation, and it was not responsible for any significant delays.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of planning matters relating to a vehicular access for a nearby property. This is because Mr B has not suffered a significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint which alleged with its handling of a planning application.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to consider properly a planning application for a rear extension including a roof terrace at a neighbouring property. Ms C said she will suffer from encroachment to her living space and a loss of privacy and light. We have found evidence of fault by the Council in its complaint handling but consider the agreed actions of an apology and further explanation are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council allowed a non-material amendment to a planning permission it granted years ago. There was fault by the Council because it did not notify Mr X of the application. However, the complaint was closed because there is no worthwhile outcome that can be achieved through further investigation of the matter by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development next to Mr X’s home. This is because Mr X has not been caused an injustice as a result of any fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with an outline planning application for a major development on Green Belt land near her home. We do not find fault with how the Council considered the matter.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not consider the impact a neighbour’s proposed extension would have on nearby houses when it decided the application did not need prior approval. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault for failing to consult neighbours before making its decision. However, that fault did not affect the outcome, and the Council’s apology is sufficient remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take planning enforcement action after he reported breaches of planning conditions on sites near his home. There was no fault in the Council’s enforcement decision making process.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve an amendment to a planning condition without consulting him or others. There was some fault which the Council agreed to remedy by improving its service, but the fault made no difference to the outcome of the planning decision and did not cause an injustice to Mr X or anyone else.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for four properties. This is because the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant is not complaining as a member of the public.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council should have taken enforcement action against a development which was built contrary to the approved plans. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate, as there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has delayed deciding his planning application. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to appeal to the planning inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension to a house near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We will not investigate Ms X complaint about the council’s complaint process as we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

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 cannot investigate this complaint about the Council not investigating planning breaches reported by a parish council. This is because we cannot investigate complaints from public bodies such as parish councils.

Summary: The Ombudsman has decided to discontinue our investigation of Mr Y’s complaint about the complaint handling system established by an airport under a Section 106 agreement with the Council. This is because the Ombudsman finds the matters complained of regarding the airport’s complaints handling process did not cause any significant personal injustice to Mr Y and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Given this, an investigation solely into the wider issues around the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s complaint cannot be justified.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the approval of a planning application near his home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.