Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it considered a planning application for a new development on a site next to her home. We found fault as the Council did not specifically refer to the impact of the proposal onto the windows of Mrs X’s property. But this fault did not cause Mrs X an injustice, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action against a neighbour’s shed. There is insufficient injustice and investigation is not likely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council gave poor advice and delayed dealing with his planning application. Mr X complains late and could reasonably have appealed the delay to the planning inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council is interpreting and applying laws and regulations regarding the control of advertisements and public art in his area. We cannot determine whether Mr X’s or the Council’s position on the rules is correct, which would be a court matter. Even if the Council is at fault, the matters do not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with and determined his planning application. Mr X has used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s refusal decision. We do not have jurisdiction to investigate where someone has used that appeal right.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of injustice caused to him by the Council’s administrative actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove protection from an area of greenspace in its Local Plan. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council consulted on its Local Plan.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s highways response to a consultation about a planning application for a housing development. This is because the alleged fault has not caused Mr B an injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s enforcement action in relation to unlawful works and demolition on an important building in his area. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council acted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve three planning applications during lockdown. The complaints about the first two applications are late and we have seen no reason to exercise discretion. And we have not seen evidence of fault in the process the Council followed leading to its approval of the third application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision, and any injustice arising from the time taken to progress the case is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement.

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 with how the Council publicised the application. The complainant has also not been caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council processed and decided his planning application. This is because it was or would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal the matter to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: Mr C says the Council published minutes of a planning meeting which failed to give adequate reasons for the planning committee’s decision to approve a planning application in his village. He says this caused him injustice because his faith in the planning system has been undermined. The Council was not at fault. The minutes were ‘adequate’.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Local Planning Authority’s decision to grant planning permission for a new access to a farm near to the complainant’s home. The Authority considered the relevant legislation and the objections received and decided to approve the application. It is unlikely further investigation will find fault. Nor can we achieve the outcome sought.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to remove a condition from a planning permission granted for a holiday park in his area. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council responded to consultation on two planning applications. The complainant has not been caused injustice that warrants our involvement because the local planning authority refused both applications.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Building Regulation approval for defective works. It is reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy from the builder involved by way of the courts if no liability is accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to follow Building Regulations legislation. This is because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider a planning application for a park and share opposite his property. He said the Council did not consider the impact and his privacy will be affected. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a surface water drainage scheme for a development near Mrs X’s home. This is because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council including her address as an objector in a planning officer report. Even if the Council had not included her address, the details required in the report would have likely informed Mrs X’s neighbour of the objection’s source. The Council cannot be held directly responsible for the resulting injustice Mrs X claims from the actions of her neighbour. Any concerns about the Council breaching Mrs X’s privacy would be for the Information Commissioner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning decision the Council made in 2018. The law does not allow us to investigate late complaints.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of two planning applications. The complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s decisions.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to ensure her neighbour completed building works. We found no fault, because the Council has no power to require the completion of building work.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against a neighbour who she says breached building control regulations. She also complains about the poor standard of service the Council provided to her. Mrs X said the matter has caused her significant distress, financial loss and has led to damage to her property. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with and made its decision not to take any enforcement action.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take effective or timely enforcement action against his neighbour, who is using their land in breach of planning controls. We ended our investigation because enforcement action is ongoing and further investigation is unlikely to result in a finding of fault or show that a significant injustice to Mr X was caused by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to notify a school about a planning application determined during the COVID-19 lockdown. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council publicised and determined the application.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council gave him wrong information before he bought his home. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault. It is reasonable for Mr X to use his legal remedy at court if he has evidence of Council negligence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because we should not investigate late complaints. The application was approved in 2017. The plan showed the proximity of the development to Mrs X’s property. There is no good reason why Mrs X did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: Mr B says the Council gave him conflicting information about work he needed to undertake to comply with the building regulations, failed to properly inspect his property, interfered with his private proceedings against the builder, wrongly refused to prosecute the builder, failed to respond to his queries and harassed him and his wife. There is no fault in how the Council handled this case with the exception of how it explained its developing position to Mr B and how it responded to his queries. An apology and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.