Summary: We find no fault by the Council in how it handled planning matters regarding Mr X’s neighbour’s application for an extension.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against a business who painted the perimeter fence of their business a different colour to that granted through the planning permission. Mr X says the colour of the fence and building impacts his view and amenity. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. The fault the Ombudsman found did not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of a pedestrian access following a Council grant of planning permission nearly 20 years ago. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because the issue does not cause him significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take action against his neighbour to tidy up their property. This is because the complaint is late and the matter does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

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

Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s response to reports of breaches of planning control at a residential development site. Mr C says there has been a harmful impact on residents’ health, safety and amenity. We have found fault but consider the agreed action of an apology and review of procedure provides a suitable remedy.

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: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr and Ms X complain about planning permission granted by the Council for a neighbour’s extension. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safety provisions in a nearby development because this is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application as it does not cause sufficient injustice to Ms X as to warrant investigation. The effect upon her as a tax payer affects all or most of the population and is therefore out of jurisdiction.

Summary: The complainants Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for a significant extension to their neighbour’s property. They say the Council failed to honour its commitment to decide the application at Planning Committee denying them further opportunities to challenge the proposals. The Council says it followed correct procedure, considered all relevant information, and used delegated powers to decide the application under its Scheme of Delegation. We found the Council acted with fault and it agreed to apologise, pay £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused and to make procedural changes.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to replace a local leisure centre with an unsuitable alternative. We have not found the Council to be at fault because it consulted with the local community and followed the correct procedures before making its decision.

Summary: Mr F complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact his neighbour’s proposed development had on his amenity. He also said it failed to consult enough neighbours and consider land stability as set out in its Policies. We found no fault in how the Council considered and handled the planning application. It reached a decision it was entitled to make, and we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision. However, it was at fault for causing delays in its complaints handling. It has apologised to Mr F, which was enough to remedy any injustice this caused.

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

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement action against her neighbours. We ended our investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault or a meaningful outcome for Mrs X.

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 not advising the complainant of its decision to dispose of premises. We are unlikely to find fault by the Council caused the complainant injustice that warrants our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a detached single garage and workshop. We have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for an Asset of Community Value. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the way the Council dealt with the Asset or the way it reached its decision to grant planning permission for an application to replace it with another development.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to determine three planning applications. This is because the complainant used their right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection issues related to 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 as there is another body better placed to deal with the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. The complaint appears late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The matter also does not cause Mrs X significant 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 an alleged breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council included an unenforceable condition on a planning permission. 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, and any injustice to the complainant is not significant enough, to justify our continued involvement.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to consider its planning policies, permitted development rights and how a development would impact on her amenity when it granted planning permission. Ms B also says the Council failed to refer the matter to committee for decision. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with the planning application.

Summary: We do not find fault in how the Council considered and approved a planning application for major development close to Ms Y’s house. The Council undertook public consultation in line with the statutory requirements and the officer report contained sufficient analysis of the impact to Ms Y and others.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Miss T, that the Council has placed a note on the local search about potential planning enforcement action on the development which her properties are located within. He says this is preventing her refinancing her properties and causing her to pay high interest charges. We do not find fault with the actions of the Council. It is the property developer who is ultimately responsible for adhering to the specified planning conditions, and the Council is not responsible for the subsequent financial impact Miss T has suffered. The Council is entitled to take action as it deems appropriate to deal with any breaches of planning control.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Miss J, that the Council has placed a note on the local search about potential planning enforcement action on the development which her properties are located within. He says this is preventing her refinancing her properties and causing her to pay high interest charges. We do not find fault with the actions of the Council. It is the property developer who is ultimately responsible for adhering to the specified planning conditions, and the Council is not responsible for the subsequent financial impact Miss J has suffered. The Council is entitled to take action as it deems appropriate to deal with any breaches of planning control.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter involving encroachment onto Mrs X’s land. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to remove scaffolding on a neighbour’s property. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to notify the complainant, and other residents, about a planning application close to their homes. 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 by the Council, and the application outcome is likely to have been the same.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning and building control matters relating to a property development close to Ms X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to notify the complainant about 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. The fault by the Council did not directly cause the complainant a significant injustice, as it was not responsible for approving the application.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application as he has appealed against its decision. If Mr X has concerns about the validity of the information the Council provided to the Planning Inspector he should contact the Inspectorate; it was for the Inspector to satisfy themselves about the Council’s evidence and we have no power to overturn its decision.

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 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 suffered significant injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s concerns about the safety of the building where he owns a flat. This is because the Council is not responsible for carrying out repairs or for the building itself and so Mr X has not been caused an injustice as a result of the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge a planning condition for a development. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.