Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because the complaint is late and the injustice Mr X claims is entirely speculative.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for her. Ms X’s injustice stems from her neighbour’s actions and her remedy lies in a claim against them for encroachment and damage to her property.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his planning application. We will not investigate a complaint where the complainant has an appeal right it is reasonable for them to use. Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination of his application which it was reasonable for him to have used. He has another Planning Inspectorate appeal right against the refusal of his application, which he says he will use, and which it is reasonable for him to use.

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 D complains the Council failed to preserve a listed building, near her home, which is in severe disrepair. She also complains the Council failed to respond to a complaint. We have completed our investigation. There is no fault in the Council’s handling of the listed building. However, it failed to reply to a formal complaint. This was fault but it did not cause a significant injustice to Ms D.

Summary: Mr X complained about a Council’s planning decision for development on his neighbour’s land. Which he said affected his residential amenity and loss of bats. We found some fault in the way the Council made its decision, but we have seen no evidence to show it has made a difference to the outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to ensure the developer of her property used the materials she says were required to comply with the planning permission for her property. This is because the injustice she claims is the result of the developer’s actions rather than those of the Council. Mrs X may wish to obtain legal advice about making a claim against the developer if she believes they have failed to provide what she has paid for.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning committee’s consideration of and decision on his neighbour’s extension application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to enforce building and electrical wiring regulations against a housing developer. This is because the circuitry issue at Mr X’s own property has been resolved by the developer and we are unlikely to find fault affected the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed taking enforcement action against her neighbour. The Council was at fault for its delayed investigation of the alleged breach. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 for the uncertainty she experienced.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council wrongly reinstated a company on its Buying with Confidence scheme when it had not completed any remedial works to her property or dealt with her complaint. The Council’s communications with Mrs B were not clear about what it would take into account when carrying out a re-audit and the re-audit paperwork was not completed properly. That did not affect the decision to reinstate the company on the scheme. An apology, payment to Mrs B and procedural changes are satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to follow its wildlife and natural habitat policies in relation to a set of planning applications and permissions granted for housing development in her locale. We do not propose to investigate the complaint because Ms X has not suffered significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a retrospective application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.

Summary: Mrs X complained it took the Council too long to begin enforcement action against her neighbour’s development, which she said causes an impact on her amenity and damages her property. We did not investigate this complaint further because enforcement action is ongoing.

Summary: Mr X complains about delay and poor communication by the Council in relation to enforcement action against an unauthorised development at a neighbouring property. The Council has already accepted fault, apologised to Mr X and made some service improvements. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice this caused Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s planning applications. 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 used the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination his applications.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling and decision on their complaints about breaches of planning control, resulting in their loss of amenity, loss of property value and distress. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making but we find fault in its communications. We recommend it provides Mr and Mrs X with an apology, payment for time and trouble, further written response and consider amending its process to improve its communications in future.

Summary: Mr X complained about a local waste management site operating without planning permission, producing dust and air pollution. The Ombudsman did not find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission without conditions on highways and drainage, causing access issues and increasing flood risk. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s processes for the determination of applications by its planning committee. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is also not for Mr X or for us to set policies for issues such as the length of committee reports and the conduct of committee meetings.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s planning application and its decision to grant permission. 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’s decision not to act against breaches of planning control. The Council has inspected the site and decided it is not expedient to act. Having followed the correct decision-making process, this is a decision it is entitled to take.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application for an extension 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. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its planning decision to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council in 2004 granted planning permission for housing without proper consideration of access rights to the development land. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants and he complains late about earlier actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s processing and decisions on her husband’s planning applications for a house extension, and about the Council’s complaint process. Mr X’s appeal to the Planning Inspectorate means we do not have jurisdiction to investigate any part of the complaint from before the end of that appeal. Any part of the complaint about Mr X’s final planning application is late, and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. We do not investigate complaints about councils’ internal complaint processes where we are not pursuing the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.