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 delays in the Council reaching a decision on Mr Y’s planning applications. This is because he had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector and it was reasonable to expect him to appeal if he was unhappy with the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to allow a bat roost tower to be built on a site adjacent to his property. 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 Council failing to notify the complainant of a change in ground levels at a development site to the rear of his 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 has not caused the complainant an injustice, as the change in levels is likely to have been approved anyway.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council reached its decision on a planning application near Mr X’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because Mr X has not been caused an injustice by the actions of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant prior approval for a telecommunications mast near Mr X’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered an application for prior approval for a telecommunications mast near his home. Mr X was not caused an injustice as a result of delays in dealing with an earlier application as the Council was able to secure amendments to the plan through the second application which made the proposal acceptable.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with her fence. This is because she has a right of appeal against the Council’s enforcement notice with the Secretary of State.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly approved defective building work which does not meet the building regulations. This is because an investigation would not achieve a meaningful outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed taking enforcement action in relation to drainage works linked to a development near his property. The Council was at fault for not taking action sooner. The Council has agreed to remedy Mr X’s injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed taking enforcement action in relation to drainage works for a development near his property. The Council was at fault for not taking action sooner. The Council has agreed to remedy Mr X’s injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the the Council delayed considering, then subsequently refused the complainants request for an External Wall System Fire Review certificate. This is because we have no jurisdiction to consider complaints from leaseholder about the actions of the Council as freeholders.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take sufficient enforcement action over a breach of planning regulations. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

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

Summary: Mr B complains of noise nuisance. The Environmental Health department investigated the noise nuisance and acted to abate a statutory noise nuisance. Although no longer a statutory nuisance, the noise continues to breach planning conditions. The Council’s planning department delayed telling Mr B it was taking no action on the breach of planning condition to control the noise. There is no fault in the Council’s decision it is not expedient to take enforcement action. Its failure to tell Mr B of its decision has caused some frustration, and unnecessary time and trouble to Mr B in pursuing matters. The Council will apologise.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider the impact of raised ground levels on a new housing development would have on her amenity when it discharged a planning condition. We ended this investigation because although we are likely to find fault, we cannot properly assess what injustice this has caused Mrs X until the planning process is completed and landscaping measures required by a planning condition are implemented.

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: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s new building. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed and decided a neighbour’s planning application or the way it has handled a possible planning breach. There is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a development next to her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s grant of planning permission for his neighbour Mr Y’s extension and its enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its planning process to warrant investigation. The planning permission is not the cause of claimed damage and encroachment onto Mr X’s property by Mr Y, nor the cause of the private civil issues between Mr X and Mr Y. The Council’s enforcement action against Mr Y has no bearing on the civil issues. We do not investigate complaints about councils’ internal complaint processes in isolation from the core matters giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take formal enforcement action against her neighbour. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce a planning condition requiring translucent glazing which has resulted in overlooking and a loss of privacy to Mr and Mrs Y’s property. The Council’s failure to properly consider the details submitted to discharge the planning condition and the approval of clear rather than translucent glazing is fault. This fault has not caused Mr and Mrs Y a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X said the development will have a significant impact on his property, particularly on the privacy within a home office he has permission to build. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Summary: Mr B says the Council misled the Planning Committee which influenced its decision to grant planning permission. Although officers failed to correct one piece of information at the Committee meeting there is no evidence this affected the final decision.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s delay in protecting her amenity after her neighbour opened a day care nursery without seeking planning approval. We found fault causing an injustice to Ms X, which the Council agreed to remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has not taken planning enforcement action about decking at his neighbour’s property. This is because the Council’s enforcement investigation is ongoing, so an investigation by us is not justified.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning approval for fencing for a development near his home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered and approved plans.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce a planning condition requiring translucent glazing which has resulted in overlooking and a loss of privacy to Mr and Mrs Y’s property. The Council’s failure to properly consider the details submitted to discharge the planning condition and the approval of clear rather than translucent glazing is fault. This fault has not caused Mr and Mrs Y a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce a planning condition requiring translucent glazing which has resulted in overlooking and a loss of privacy to Mr Y and Ms Z’s property. The Council’s failure to properly consider the details submitted to discharge the planning condition and the approval of clear rather than translucent glazing is fault. This fault has not caused Mr Y and Ms Z a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce a planning condition requiring translucent glazing which has resulted in overlooking and a loss of privacy to Ms Y’s property. The Council’s failure to properly consider the details submitted to discharge the planning condition and the approval of clear rather than translucent glazing is fault. This fault has caused Ms Y an injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce a planning condition requiring translucent glazing which has resulted in overlooking and a loss of privacy to Ms Y’s property. The Council’s failure to properly consider the details submitted to discharge the planning condition and the approval of clear rather than translucent glazing is fault. This fault has not caused Ms Y a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or a possible breach of planning control. 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 applications. This is because the complainant has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr B complained that a supermarket near his house was taking deliveries outside of the hours specified by a planning condition. There was fault by the Council. It has not communicated a clear decision-making process or plan to Mr B so that he knows what action he might expect the Council to take to resolve this. Also, it took too long to serve a breach of condition notice and to decide whether to take further action. This caused Mr B injustice and the Council has agreed to take action to remedy this.

Summary: We do not have grounds to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action regarding a breach of planning control. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate now. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has consider the use of its planning enforcement powers as the development is subject to an appeal with the Planning Inspector. We cannot know what, if any, impact the actions of the Council have had on Mr X until the outcome of the appeal is known.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints about his neighbour’s hedge. This is because he has already exercised his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaints about delays in the Council’s complaints process as any injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.