Summary: Ms X complained the Council decided to approve a planning application behind her property without fully considering the impact of traffic, flooding and building on green belt land. Ms X also complained the Council failed to consult residents in a fair and impartial manner. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s decision-making or consultation over the planning application. The Ombudsman does find fault with the Council for the delay in handling Ms X’s complaint but does not consider this caused Ms X a significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a neighbour failing to meet planning conditions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions on a reported breach of planning control. The complaint is late, and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has signed off building work which has caused damage to his property. This is because we cannot hold the Council responsible for the damage and cannot therefore achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a planning enforcement matter. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council provided incorrect information in local land charges searches regarding the Permitted Development rights for a property he purchased. The Council’s failure to record the removal of permitted development rights as a local land charge which is discoverable through a search of the local land charges register is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for his neighbour’s extension. We have not found the Council to be at fault. It considered Mr X’s concerns about light and incorrect measurements prior to granting permission. For this reason, we cannot question the merits of the Council's decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is pursuing him for payments he has already made. This is because the courts are better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement action taken by the Council against the complainant. Part of the complaint is late and we have no jurisdiction to investigate other parts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development next to Mr X’s home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision or dealt with the application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fifth generation (5G) telecommunications masts in the Council’s area. Investigation is unlikely to find any fault by the Council. Also, the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X a significant enough injustice direct injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled changes to a development which were not in line with planning permission. This is because the complainant has not suffered a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council had failed to protect his amenity after it approved his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X said that, because of this, his amenity is severely affected. We ended our investigation because the planning enforcement process relating to breach of a planning condition is ongoing. Mr X may come back to us if he remains unhappy at the outcome of the enforcement process.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to determine an application to vary his section 106 planning agreement and that this has caused him significant losses. We ended our investigation because it is unlikely to result in a meaningful outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to revoke planning permission for a site opposite the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge Mr X for an easement over its land. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his concerns about his neighbour’s development constructed under ‘permitted development’. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mrs X building regulation approval for work carried out at her home. This is because she has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against any refusal to issue a compliance certificate and it would be reasonable for her to use this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council wrongly approved defective building work to his home which did not meet the building regulations. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B seeks.

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 this complaint about a code of conduct complaint against a councillor. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s first planning application. This is because the complaint is late and we could not say the Council’s actions affected its decision or caused Mr X significant injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s second planning application as there is not enough evidence of fault.

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

Summary: Ms B complained the Council did not properly consider a planning application for development near to her home. She considered the proposals will have an adverse impact on the ecology of the site and that the mitigation measures were inadequate. There was fault in the way the Council handled Ms B’s complaint for which it should apologise.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a housing development on land next to his home. We did not investigate this complaint further because it was brought to us outside our 12‑month time limit and further investigation is unlikely to result in a meaningful outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development near Mrs X’s home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consider the impact of a development on Mrs X’s home. This is because it is a late complaint and there are no reasons for us to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council imposing a Community Infrastructure Levy surcharge on the complainant, and that a council officer advised the complainant to act unethically. 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 in relation to the surcharge, and the complainant has not suffered an injustice as a result of the alleged comments by the officer.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against the owner of a listed building. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council acquired land close to the complainants property, which a sports club has subsequently been allowed to install football pitches on. This is because the complaint is made late and the courts are better placed to settle disputes about land ownership.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to take formal enforcement action and any delay did not cause Miss X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications and a possible breach of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late. It is unlikely we will find fault, and the complainants have not been caused significant injustice, in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered a planning application or planning enforcement complaint. The complaint is not upheld.