Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly granted planning permission for his neighbour’s development. There was no fault in the Council’s decision making process and therefore I cannot comment on the decision reached. The Council was at fault for a long delay in formally responding to Mr X’s complaint. This meant Mr X was put to additional time and trouble pursuing the matter, for which the Council should apologise and pay him £150.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for an equestrian facility in the complainant’s village. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The alleged fault has not caused the complainant a significant injustice, and we cannot consider complaints about parish councils.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to an outbuilding built by neighbours. We will not investigate the complaint 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 this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a developer for failing to meet conditions placed on a planning permission for a development close to the complainant’s home. We will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s planning decision. We found fault because there was an inconsistency between the Council’s statement of community involvement document and its delegation scheme, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mrs X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council decided to grant planning permission for development next to the complainants’ home. We are unlikely to find fault affected the Council’s decision. The Council is currently considering the complainants’ concerns about possible breaches of the planning permission.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his concerns about his next-door neighbours’ use of their rear garden. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions to grant planning permission for their neighbour’s extension and not to take formal action for a minor breach of planning control. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting the decisions.

Summary: We found no fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for development near Miss X’s property.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application for development near her home. We found the Council was at fault and it agreed to apologise for the avoidable distress caused to Ms X. We did not find the fault affected the Council’s decision to grant the development planning permission.

Summary: Mrs X says the Council failed to inform her that a sequential test was necessary before she submitted a planning application. There was fault by the Council because the planning officer Mrs X consulted was unaware of the sequential test requirement. The complaint was closed because the Council already acted to remedy the injustice to Mrs X.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action in respect of unauthorised development at a neighbouring property. Mr X says the structure is visually intrusive and any ongoing use has the potential to cause disturbance. As a retrospective planning application for the retention of the unauthorised structure is pending determination, it would not be a good use of public money to investigate this matter further at this time.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council decided a planning application for a development next door to her home. She complained that the Council allowed the developer to instal larger windows than previously agreed, did not impose restrictions on working hours, and prevented her from objecting to the latest planning application. Ms X also complained that the Council delayed sending its final complaint response. She says this caused anxiety, distress, and had an impact on her health. Largely we do not find the Council at fault. However, we find the Council at fault for delays sending its final complaint response. This caused Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy this injustice. We are satisfied the Council has already apologised for the delay.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council has not dealt properly with a planning application near her home. The Council is at fault because it did not consider the impact of or alternatives to the conditions it applied. Mrs B is left with an avoidable impact to her amenity and has suffered distress. The Council should pay Mrs B £200 for her distress and pay her £1000 for loss of amenity towards improvements to her property to reduce the visual impact.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application as well as its decision to grant planning permission.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s consideration of a planning application for a site close to the complainant’s home.

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. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Local Plan and planning decisions relating to land owned by X. Parts of X’s complaint are late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate now. X has also exercised their right of appeal to the Planning Inspector so we cannot investigate the way the Council dealt with their recent planning application. X has also not been caused an injustice as a result of the Council not including the land they own within its defined settlement boundaries.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s planning application or how it dealt with the complainant’s neighbour’s applications. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint, made on behalf of Mrs X, about how the Council determined her planning application. Mrs X has used her 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: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving planning applications for telecommunications equipment near the complainant’s house. 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 causing injustice in the handling of a recent application, and the Council has apologised for the delay in the complaint process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s planning applications or its decision to take enforcement action. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised his buyers that he had not built a new house in accordance with the approved plans. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to make an application to challenge the Council’s view and to appeal against any refusal.

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 Mrs X’s complaint about the Council delaying its decision on her planning application, and its decision to refuse the permission. Mrs X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate regarding any Council delay in its decision, an appeal it was reasonable for her to use. Mrs X now has a further right of appeal to the Inspectorate against the Council refusing the permission, which it reasonable for her to use to pursue the matter.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take suitable enforcement action against his neighbour, who he said built an extension without permission and that was structurally unsound. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault for delays and inaction. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty which the Council agreed to remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failure to address concerns about his neighbour’s development. He said it did not comply with building regulations or its planning permission and created a potential risk of fire and water damage to his property. We do not find the Council was at fault because it considered Mr X’s concerns but reached a different conclusion to him about the development’s compliance with building regulations and planning permission.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a new backland development on a site close to their home. The Ombudsman has not upheld Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. This is because we find that there was no fault with the action of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or the decision to change the housing settlement boundary. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

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: The complainant says the Council ignored her objections and failed to consider the impact of a planning application on her home. It also failed to ask the Ward Councillor if he wanted the application decided by the Planning Committee. I will not investigate this complaint because we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, nor would further investigation lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the determination of a planning application for a replacement dwelling near the complainant’s home, or its handling of the subsequent complaint correspondence. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council’s handling of the application has not caused the complainant an injustice, and it has provided an appropriate response to the alleged faults in the complaints process.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to consider the impact of her neighbour’s extension on her home when it granted planning permission. The Council failed to keep a record of the reasons for its decision and publish this on its website. The Council has agreed to pay Ms X £100 and apologise for the unnecessary time and trouble caused. The Council should also take action to improve its services. We will not investigate this complaint as the Council has agreed to provide a remedy and there is nothing further we can achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making process when determining a planning application for a new dormer window in a nearby property. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation. Other claimed fault in the planning process does not cause such significant personal injustice to Mr X to justify investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks from his complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a planning application. The complaint is made by a public body and not a member of the public.

Summary: 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: Mr X complains 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: Mr B has complained that there was fault in the way the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour to extend the neighbouring property. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council considered the application, so we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council wrongly granted planning permission for his neighbour’s two storey front and side extension. As a result, he said he and his family had a loss of amenity and had time and trouble to pursue his complaint. The Council agreed it was at fault and it should not have approved the application. We found the Council’s offer was not enough to remedy the injustice caused. The Council agreed to make a higher payment for the loss of amenity. It also agreed make payment to acknowledge Mr B’s time and trouble to pursue his complaint.

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.