Summary: Mr X (and his neighbours) complain about the Council’s handling of noise complaints about commercial refrigeration units located near their homes since 2015. While some matters are too old for us to investigate, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the planning enforcement case against the company that owns the offending units.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the complainants’ reports of breaches of planning control, noise and odour issues and fire risk at a restaurant opposite the complainant’s home. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take action against his neighbour for development which results in overlooking to his property. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Summary: On balance, the evidence shows the Council considers it should have required the submission of a noise assessment, as part of a planning application, and so this is fault. This did not, however, make any difference to the outcome of the application. There is no evidence of fault in any other aspect of the complaint, and so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the plans submitted with an application to amend a planning permission were inaccurate and misleading. 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 is unlikely to have affected the planning outcome, so it has not caused the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with a planning matter and how it considered noise and other anti-social behaviour issues. We found the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to properly consider a reserved matters planning application for a housing development which has resulted in unacceptable levels of overlooking and loss of light and outlook. We have found no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters associated with its decision to granting planning permission for a development opposite the complainant’s property. 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 use the alternative remedies available to him, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the planning application, and we will not pursue concerns about the complaints process in isolation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s decision to grant planning permission on a neighbouring property has resulted in a loss of privacy for him. Mr X also said he had no opportunity to make objections to the plans. We do not find fault with the way the Council notified Mr X of the planning application or decided to approve it.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a proposed development near his property. The development has not yet been granted planning permission. We will not investigate a council’s planning process while it is ongoing. We also cannot determine whether there has been a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X stemming from that process until it has ended. We would not have enough evidence of fault, or of significant personal injustice, to warrant investigation of a complaint on the same issues from him after the permission is granted, and could also not achieve the outcome he wants. It would be reasonable for Mr X to refer his freedom of information complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application and delays in its responses to the complainant’s letters. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision‑making process to warrant an investigation. The matters raised do not cause a significant personal injustice to the complainant to justify our involvement.

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

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector. And it is not unreasonable to expect her to report her concerns about data protection and record management to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

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

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decisions relating to development on land next to his home. Mr X said he has been caused stress and anxiety by what has happened. We ended our investigation, as it is unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for an injustice or any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: Ms C complained that the Council breached its own guidance and policies when approving an application for planning permission made by her neighbour. The Council was not at fault. It considered all the relevant policies before making its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a development near the complainant’s home or a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning enforcement matter. This is because the Council has not completed its enforcement investigation yet. This means it is too early for us to consider this complaint in detail.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about it acting to ensure their neighbour cleared a site following a planning inspector’s dismissal of his appeal against the decision he was breaching planning consent. Its enforcement investigation was delayed, failed to keep them regularly updated about progress, and did not keep proper records. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development near 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 of fault by the Council cause the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to the complainant’s concerns about her neighbour’s building work. The complaint is made too late, and we have seen no good reason to investigate now.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning approval to a neighbouring property. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.