Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his reports of a food business operating from a residential property near where he lives. The Council failed to properly investigate Mr X’s reports of a possible statutory nuisance and to keep him informed about its planning enforcement investigation. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty, frustration and inconvenience. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Mr X a financial remedy and review its procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission which the complainant says has resulted in access problems. The right of access is a private matter unaffected by the Authority’s grant of planning permission.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that it abused its planning and development responsibilities over a multi use games area.

Summary: Mr X complains about lack of planning enforcement by the Council against the use of a camp site near him. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault and some of the complaint does not cause such significant injustice to him that would warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the lack of planning enforcement of a neighbour’s property. We will not investigate this complaint because the complaint is late.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s threat of enforcement action in relation to her property. We will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector against any formal enforcement action by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for development next to the complainant’s home. It is unlikely we would find evidence of fault causing the complainant injustice that warrants our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s response to a breach of planning control he reported. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: The Council took too long to respond to Resident A’s complaint to it. The Council has apologised and offered Resident A £150 in recognition of the distress it caused them. This is a reasonable way to settle this part of their complaint. There was no fault in how the Council handled planning matters when it granted permission for Resident A’s neighbour to keep the outbuilding he had erected, including how it considered the impact on Resident A’s disability.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It published personal information about Mr B on its website, and it took too long to respond to his complaint to it. The Council has apologised, retrained staff and offered Mr B £100. This is a reasonable way to settle this part of his complaint. There was no fault in how the Council handled planning matters when it granted permission Mr B’s neighbour to keep the outbuilding he had erected.

Summary: Mr X complained he was not provided with updates on a planning enforcement investigation into possible breaches of planning control at a quarry. There was fault by the Council because of a period in which it did not keep Mr X informed of its investigation. However, the Council has since kept Mr X informed on a consistent basis. Mr X did not suffer a significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of this complaint by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mr X says the Council provided an apathetic response to his concerns about unauthorised development at a neighbouring property. There was fault by the Council because the planning enforcement team delayed responding to his concerns while other departments or persons may not have responded at all. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of the complaint by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision on a planning application for a development at a site close to her home. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters relating to the raising and lowering of the level of an area of land adjacent to Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a historic planning enforcement case from 8 years ago that was considered by the courts. This is because we should not consider late complaints that relate to events the complainant was aware of more than 12 months ago. We cannot consider matters already considered by the courts.

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.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve development near his home that he is concerned will cause noise disturbance. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision, but there was some fault in the way the Council kept its records. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and investigate how the fault happened.

Summary: Ms X complained about delay in the Council’s handling of a planning application. We ended our investigation as it is unlikely to result in a finding of fault or a remedy for the complainant.

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

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to notify her of her neighbour’s planning application and for ignoring the impact of the development on her amenity. The Council has already accepted fault in its handling of this case and has already offered Mrs X an appropriate remedy. There was unaddressed fault in the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s complaints, which has caused avoidable delay and distress. The Council agrees to apologise and make a further payment to Mrs X for this. It will also review its procedures and issue a reminder to relevant staff.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consult him regarding changes to his neighbour’s plans for an extension which will overshadow his home. There was fault by the Council, but this did not cause injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning practices and refusal of planning permission. We cannot investigate because Mr X has appealed to the planning inspector. Mr X complains late about earlier actions and could reasonably have used appeal rights.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to notify the complainant about a planning application for a development which he says encroaches on his boundary. 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, and the delay in the Council’s complaint process has not caused the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action in relation to a building control matter. This is because the Ombudsman cannot investigate the start of court proceedings. It is unlikely we will find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development next to his home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission or its consideration of a potential breach of planning control. The Council has also not had an opportunity to respond to Mr X’s complaint about how it responded to his reports of dust and noise from the building site.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, made on behalf of his partner Ms Y, about how the Council is handling her planning application. This is because Ms Y has a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the basis of the Council’s non‑determination of her application, which it is reasonable for her to use.

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

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 Council’s decision.

Summary: We cannot investigate this planning enforcement complaint because it has been made by a parish council. We cannot investigate complaints made by public bodies such as parish councils.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to grant planning permission for development next to 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. Delay in responding to the complainant did not cause him injustice that justifies our involvement.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application for a neighbour’s extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s determination of a planning application for a residential development adjacent to the complainant’s home. 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 considered the application.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against her neighbour who breached planning conditions. Mrs X says the building works by her neighbour affected her access to sunlight, privacy in her back garden and caused damage to her property. Mrs X also complained her neighbour applied in 2020 to change the use of the property from residential to a care facility. Mrs X says development a care facility next to her property will reduce the value of her property and make her feel unsafe. The Ombudsman found fault with delays to the Council’s enforcement process and failure to address all Mrs X’s complaints about breaches of planning conditions. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to apologise to Mrs X and pays her £250 for the stress, inconvenience and upset caused. The Council also agreed to attend Mrs X’s property to complete an investigation about the unaddressed breach of planning conditions.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to follow planning guidance and procedures before it discharged the planning conditions for a large development of homes in his local area. As a result, he said there was a risk of damage to protected trees and injury to pedestrians. We found the Council and its Tree Officer properly considered the Developer’s plans before discharging the planning conditions. It made decisions it was entitled to make, and we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not referring to the Right to Build Register in its Local Plan. The Local Plan is currently being examined by a Planning Inspector which means there is no significant injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to close a runway on an airfield close to the complainants home. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why the complainant couldn’t have complained sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to ensure building works comply with the Building Regulations. This is because the matter does not cause him significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. The Council considered the neighbour’s objections before it made its decision. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault in the decision-making process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a building regulation application or the complainant’s concerns that it failed to share information with the Coal Authority. This is because the complainant had a right to appeal against the decision to refuse her application. It is also unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

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

Summary: The Council’s records do not show that it properly considered how Mrs B was affected by a breach of planning control when it decided not to pursue enforcement action. The Council has agreed to carry out a site visit and review its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained there was a conflict of interest in the way the Council decided a planning matter. He also complained the Council failed to properly consider the planning application. We found there was no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove permitted development rights for Houses in Multiple Occupation. This is because Mr X has not been caused a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is no evidence to suggest there was fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because the complaint concerns the accuracy of information informing the Council’s view and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to let the Council decide the application and to have appealed against any refusal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the complainant’s planning appeals were dealt with. This is because we cannot investigate the actions of the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her concerns about her neighbour’s development. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is unlikely we could achieve anything for Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to grant planning permission for development near to 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 this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we cannot yet say if the complainant has suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to approve plans for the extension of a nearby house. We do not find fault in most of Mr Y’s complaint. However, the Council failed to assess Mr Y’s concerns about increased noise within the officer’s delegated planning report. We consider this fault created no injustice to Mr Y because, on the balance of probabilities, even if the officer had assessed this point it is unlikely they would have reached a different decision.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not tell her early enough that she required planning permission for works to her property because it falls within a Conservation Area. 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: We will not investigate this complaint about changes to a planning application which resulted in financial loss to the Parish Council. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault which has caused the complainant significant personal injustice.

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

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 and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in determining planning applications. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

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 will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to various planning issues Mr X raised with it. This is because there is no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in determining a planning application. This is because Mr Z had the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which he could reasonably have used.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve the installation of a new mobile phone mast on land near her home. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants, which is to move the mast.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue of an enforcement notice requiring work to a property he has let to tenants. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the enforcement notice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his planning application. This is because he has a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) which was reasonable for him to use.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with two planning applications. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate as the complainant is complaining on behalf of a parish council and not as a member of the public.