Summary: There was no fault by the Council. It properly considered whether a new house on a plot adjoining Mr B’s home had been built in accordance with the planning permission. It also properly considered the sloping site and the potential impact on flooding. The Council could have communicated Mr B better in its complaint handling so that it could understand and address his concerns. This caused Mr B frustration but did not alter the outcome of his complaint.

Summary: Mr B complained that there was fault in the way the Council considered an application for planning permission for a development next to his property. He says no computer-generated visualisations were provided showing the impact on his property. He says the development will result in an unneighbourly sense of enclosure. The Ombudsman found no fault on the Council’s part.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (21 008 734)

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

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her planning applications. This is because Miss B has either used her right of appeal to the planning inspector or it is reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr D’s complaint about the way it dealt with a neighbour’s application to fell a protected tree. It delayed contacting the neighbour for a survey after receiving legal advice but, this caused no injustice. It also failed to provide the evidence it considered when deciding the neighbour complied with consent conditions and missed its own timescales for dealing with complaints. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council should not have given a neighbour planning permission to build on land in his ownership. We find fault in the Council’s failure to adequately scrutinise the land ownership certificate provided by the neighbour as part of their planning application. We find this caused injustice to Mr X as the neighbour used the planning permission to justify resuming building work on Mr X’s land (and that of another neighbour affected) causing distress. The Council accepts these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed remedy this injustice and that associated with some poor complaint handling.

Summary: Mr D complained the Council approved a neighbouring extension which overlooks his home and garden. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in the process followed by the Council in approving the extension.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the planning conditions the Council placed on the complainant’s planning permission. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application close to the complainants home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault leading to an injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about inconsistency in a planning decision taken by the Council. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find fault affected the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s processing of a planning application. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant has used their right of appeal to the planning inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to a planning application. This is because, the matter has been considered by the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council delayed in acting to enforce the protection of a listed building in his area. He says the building has historical significance and because of the delays is now in a severely deteriorated state. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council has managed its involvement in preserving the listed building.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council has received on a planning application. This is because the Council has not made a decision on the application and so we cannot know what, if any, injustice Mr X has been caused as a result of a decision the Council is yet to take.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against an industrial unit next to Mr X’s home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning approval and enforcement over a neighbouring extension. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a Council’s decision to grant planning permission for extensions to a residential property. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision to grant planning permission. Mrs X has also not been caused an injustice by any failure of the Council to publicise the application as she was still able to provide it with her comments.

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 Inspectorate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission granted by the Council. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Investigation would not provide any worthwhile outcome.

Summary: Mr C says the Council is at fault for its failure to prevent a local company from breaching planning conditions barring it from working outside normal working hours, from making excessive noise and other nuisances. He says this has caused him and his wife injustice as their enjoyment of their property has been diminished. The Council was not at fault. The Council is not at fault for any breaches of planning conditions by the company and it has taken action to control the company when it deemed it appropriate.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council granted planning permission for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council’s failure to act caused him pain and suffering, had an impact on residents, and ruined the landscape. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly publicise 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. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council publicised the application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development close to the complainants home. This is because the events happened too long ago and I see no reason why the matter could not have been brought to our attention sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Community Infrastructure Levy charges made by the Council. This is because Mr X has a right of appeal to the Valuation Office Agency and it would be reasonable to expect him to do exercise that right.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.