Summary: Mr X complains the Council mistakenly issued a Decision Notice without removing the Permitted Development rights. The Council acknowledged this and has apologised. We find fault with the Council for the omission, but the injustice is not sufficient to warrant a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that an Officer misled the Council’s Planning Committee by using a pre-application drawing of a bungalow instead of a dormer bungalow. The application was refused and therefore the complainant has not suffered any injustice as a result. Nor have I seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered multiple reports of breaches of planning control.

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: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of planning matters concerning a development site close to her home. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s planning enforcement team is harassing the complainant. 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 to use/have used the alternative remedy available to him. There is also not enough evidence of fault causing injustice in relation to the Council’s recent enforcement investigations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide information to the Planning Committee when it determined a Listed Building Consent 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 to suggest fault has affected the planning outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision about his planning application. This is because he has appealed to the Planning Inspector and taken court action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s planning department or how the Council dealt with a Freedom of Information request. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector and his concerns about how the Council dealt with his request for information are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because his injustice lies in the decision to refuse the application and it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a grant funding scheme. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the grant applications, and the Council has satisfactorily addressed other parts of the complaint.

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: Mr X complains about delay by the Council in taking planning enforcement action. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about pre planning application advice given by the Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matters are out of time and ultimately there is a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a nearby house development. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning notification and decision-making processes to warrant investigation. We also cannot achieve the key outcome Miss X seeks from her complaint, and there would be no benefit or different outcome to the matter to be achieved by a site visit.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out satisfactory checks and controls on an individual completing building works to the rear of his property. Mr X says the new building’s wall collapsed causing damage to his garden wall. The Ombudsman discontinued our investigation of this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault, and further investigation of the Council would not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for an airport runway extension. Mr X said the development will increase noise in his area. We did not investigate this complaint further, as we are unlikely to find fault, provide the outcome Mr X would like or any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action in relation to a building in their neighbour’s garden, which they say affects their amenities. We ended our investigation as we are unlikely to be able to show that any potential fault made a difference to the Council’s decision.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council made errors when it approved his neighbour’s planning application for a boundary fence, and it failed to take action against encroachment on his property. We found the Council at fault for failing to follow the local Highway Authority’s advice, as it approved the planning application without conditioning a pedestrian visibility splay. It was not at fault for not taking enforcement action for encroachment. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr B and make payment to acknowledge the distress its fault caused him.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which it would have been reasonable for him to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to act on Mr X’s concerns regarding planning breaches. The complaint is late. If it were not late, there is no fault in the Council’s actions on the substantive issue and there is not sufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. The injustice he claims stems from the decision to refuse his application and if he felt the decision was wrong it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: The complainants say the Council failed to act when a developer for three different sites built up the site levels which created additional flooding. Part of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. There is no fault by the Council in the remainder of the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained about delays in handling an enforcement matter he raised with the Council. Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action once it did complete its investigation. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s decisions about how to close its enforcement cases. The Ombudsman does find fault with delays by the Council causing Mr X frustration and distress. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to open a third enforcement case, apologise to Mr X and pay him £150.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not enforced against a neighbouring development that does not comply with approved plans. He says this has led to a loss of outlook from his property. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the way the Council considered whether to take enforcement action.

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: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development at a site near his home. 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 considered several planning applications for sites near each other. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered two of the applications. The remaining applications have not received planning permission therefore the claimed injustice is speculative.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a complaint. This is because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints solely about the complaint process.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to a neighbour. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and the matter is out of time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council declining to notify Mr X’s neighbour that their property was a Grade 2 Listed Building. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.