Summary: Mrs B complained the Council wrongly granted planning permission for a development at the back of her property and failed to take enforcement action. We did not fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the Council’s planning decision was made too long ago for us to investigate effectively, and it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a retrospective planning application for a development next 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. The alleged fault by the Council has not caused the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s consideration of their covenant powers in relation to his land. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time and there is a private remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application advice provided in 2020. This is because the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his more recent request for pre-application advice because its actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission to Mr B’s neighbour for a first-floor balcony.

Summary: Mr E complained how the Council handled a breach of planning control when his neighbour erected a fence near to where he lives. We find the Council was at fault for failing to properly understand the condition in the original plans did not explicitly remove permitted development rights. The Council apologised to Mr E for the inconvenience and distress caused. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: The Council’s actions did not lead to the injustice claimed by the complainant so no further investigation is warranted. Even if the Council was at fault, Mr X would have never had a right of review or appeal against a Community Infrastructure Levy on his housing development as he had commenced work before the Community Infrastructure Levy process began.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council approved 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. There is not enough evidence of fault leading to significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development 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. There is nothing to suggest fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application. 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 the way the Council approved 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. There is insufficient evidence of fault leading to significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about planning enforcement by the Council against him. We will not investigate this complaint because there was a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action when a neighbour removed a hedge and trees in a conservation area affecting his privacy. There is no fault in failing to consider a Tree Preservation Order as the Council was not aware the trees had been removed. However, the Council delayed in starting an enforcement investigation and it should apologise for this.

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

Summary: Mr X complains about delay by the Council in removing comments in a planning case. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied.

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

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure a developer installed a privacy screen in line with the planning conditions or approved drawings. Mr X says the resultant privacy screen does not provide him with the intended privacy. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council failing to include the relevant drawings in the decision notice preventing effective enforcement. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to apologise to Mr X and pay him £1,000 for the impact on his amenity.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against her neighbours, when they built an extension to a greater height than permission allowed for. We have discontinued our investigation. The planning enforcement case is still active so it is not possible for us to determine the level of injustice the alleged fault may have caused Ms X.

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 allegations of bias by the Authority or interference in electing Chairperson for a statutory consultee. 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 Mr X’s proposals to develop a plot of land he owns. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s neighbour’s extension. This is because both Mr X and his neighbour are Council tenants so this is a complaint about the management of social housing. The law does not allow us to investigate these complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complaint is late.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for changes to the building where she lives. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X says the Council failed to act on his reports that his neighbour carried out development on a front driveway without planning permission. Mr X also complains the Council unreasonably decided to apply its policy on vexatious or persistent complainants to him. There was fault by the Council because it did not inform Mr X of the outcome of its planning enforcement investigation. It consequently improperly applied its policy on vexatious complainants. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him to address the injustice he suffered in consequence of its fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for an extension to a flat below 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 to suggest fault has affected the planning application outcome, the Council has offered a satisfactory remedy for its delays in responding to the complaint correspondence, and we cannot consider any parts of the complaint about the Council’s actions as freeholder of the building.

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