Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application including not properly completing the validation process. Mr C says this has led to concern about the treatment of future applications and unnecessary legal costs and time and trouble. We have found no fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed enforcing a planning condition and wrongly decided there was no breach of planning control, causing her distress, noise and loss of privacy. We find fault in the Council’s communications that did not affect its decision outcomes. We recommend the Council apologise to Mrs X and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt planning enforcement issues on land next to Ms X’s home. This is because parts of the complaint are late and there is no good reason to investigate now. There is also no evidence of fault in how the Council is dealing with current enforcement issues.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed a prior approval application for the change of use of agricultural buildings to dwellings. 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 determined the application.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision not to award compensation for inconvenience caused by building works it carried out at the property next door to her premises. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve the outcome Ms X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because it does not cause Miss X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to allow a neighbour’s development which has affected Ms X’s property and the open plan aspect of the estate she lives on. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X seeks.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council considered her planning application. Mrs X used her right of appeal to the planning inspector so the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application or its decision to take enforcement action against him. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s demand for a Community Infrastructure Levy payment. We have not seen any evidence of fault in the Authority’s actions. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a Scoping Opinion. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed before issuing the Opinion. And the claimed injustice is speculative.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s proposals to develop a building its area. This is because the Council’s planning committee refused planning permission for the development and so Mr X has not been caused an injustice and there are no wider public interest issues for us to consider.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take formal enforcement action for a breach of a planning condition. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning matters on land Mr X owns. This is because part of the complaint is late as Mr X was aware of the Council’s position regarding a historic planning application in November 2020 but did not complain to the Ombudsman until June 2022. Mr X also had a right of appeal to the Secretary of State regarding delays in the Council reaching a decision on his planning application and there is no reason why he could not have pursued this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approach to a contribution to affordable housing in a planning application. This is because the complainant has used his right of appeal in the matter which means we have no discretion to investigate. Even if we had, the complaint is late and there would be no good reasons to investigate events from up to eight years ago.

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

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s consideration of works done to the house next to his. He considered work was carried out which did not have planning approval and the Council did not take enforcement action. He considered the change to a window increased overlooking of his property. And the removal of a chimney could have caused the release of asbestos into the atmosphere. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council approved a planning application for a mesh façade on a new public building which causes him and his neighbours, significant visual disturbance, nausea and headaches. While we recognise the negative impact of the building, we have not found fault with the way the Council considered the planning application.

Summary: Mrs F has made complaint about the Council’s approach to planning and the development of land in her local area. In general terms, she complains about flawed decisions by the Council relating to policy, planning conditions and enforcement action. Mrs F alleges the primary injustice to her is harm to the natural wildlife in her local area. She also explains the Council’s decisions have failed to mitigate harm to the character of the area she lives in. We found the majority of issues raised by Mrs F are late and that the Ombudsman has no legal jurisdiction to investigate them. Moreover, we have no means to assess the primary injustice alleged by Mrs F. We also do not consider it is likely that there has been any fault by the Council with respect to its consideration of taking enforcement action. For these reasons, we have discontinued our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to follow up on a Section 106 agreement relating to the housing estate on which Mr X lives. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his planning application. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council’s grant of planning permission for a neighbour’s extension causes him a loss of privacy. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing him injustice.

Summary: The Council was at fault for approving plans to increase the height of Ms X’s neighbour’s property without following the proper decision-making processes. Ms X says the increase in height negatively affects light and privacy in her home. However, we do not find that this fault caused an injustice, as Ms X lives a significant distance from the property.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s planning application. This is because Mr X has appealed against the Council’s decision to refuse the application to the Planning Inspectorate so placing the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to act following a breach of an abatement notice for nuisance from light caused by a business close to her home. We will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, Mrs X has an alternative remedy through the courts.

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 this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a site next to the complainant’s home, or its handling of the subsequent complaint. 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 application was determined, and the Council’s apology is an appropriate way to remedy the delay in responding to the associated complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near Mr X’s home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a new development near Mr X’s home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the impact of the development on Mr X’s home. Mr X has also not been caused an injustice as a result of the number of units planned.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s planning applications. 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, or have used, the rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, we cannot investigate any parts of the complaint where that alternative remedy has already been used, and we cannot determine the legality of a pre-commencement condition.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or the pre-application advice it provided to the complainant. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. The complainant also has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

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 Ms X’s and Ms Y’s complaints about the Council’s handling of a planning application for development near their homes. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating, we could not add to the Council’s responses to the complainants, and we cannot achieve the outcome they seek.