Summary: Ms B complains the Council has not taken enforcement action against a developer for breaches of planning control. The Ombudsman will discontinue this investigation. Ms B is complaining as a parish councillor and so the complaint is out of our jurisdiction.

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 by the Council. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about recent planning decisions and the way the Council has handled the development of a site on the complainant’s road. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has dealt with the most recent planning applications to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications. This is because the complaint has been made by a parish council, which is a public body. We cannot investigate complaints by public bodies.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council unnecessarily delayed in taking planning enforcement action against her neighbour. She also complained about how it updated her on its progress. The Council was at fault for allowing the case to drift for a short period of time. The Council will apologise to Mrs X. It has taken suitable action to prevent the fault occurring again.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Mr X complains about the grant of planning permission for a kiosk in a local park. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to him to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about misleading information provided at a planning committee meeting. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take planning enforcement action in 2018. The complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council decided and dealt with his planning applications, including his allegations of discrimination. Mr X had rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s decisions on his planning applications which it was reasonable for him to have used. There is no separate transaction between the Council and Mr X here other than the planning service, so he could have made any discrimination allegation as part of his Inspectorate appeal. The complaint is also late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. It was made by a parish council on behalf of a resident. We do not consider the parish council is a suitable representative because there is a potential conflict of interest.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s planning officers. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

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

Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to properly notify residents about a planning application for two silos containing materials used in concrete production or properly consider the application. Mr C also complained the Council failed to take effective action in response to residents’ reports of nuisance and breaches of planning control. Mr C says residents missed the opportunity to comment on the planning application and suffer a significant and damaging impact on their residential amenity. We have found no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to consult properly on closure of a public building. This is because some events described have been subject to court action and an investigation would not result in a different outcome. The remaining part of the complaint is about an ongoing consultation so we will not intervene by investigating.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to enforce building regulations after his neighbour moved an oil tank next to his property. We find the Council was at fault for its communication with Mr C. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address Mr C’s injustice.

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 how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

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

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 to grant planning permission. Mr X was not caused an injustice as a result of the Council’s failure to notify him about the application as he was still able to comment on it.