Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said the Council failed by changing its position on the use of its powers to act in relation to the retaining wall between his and his neighbour’s (Mr Y) properties. Mr X considered the Council discriminated against him. We find fault in the process leading to the Council’s decision to stop its involvement. This fault caused Mr X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X in writing, to make a payment to recognise his distress and to introduce a policy detailing the Council’s approach to its use of powers towards dangerous structures. We do not find fault in the way the Council took account of its duties under the Equality Act 2010.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to consult the complainant following receipt of amended plans on his neighbour’s planning application. Nor will we investigate a complaint about its decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control. This is because we have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaints about the Council’s 2019 planning process and decision, its responses to their concerns about the property as built, or officers’ communications. The complaints about the 2019 process and decision are late and there is no good reason to investigate them now. Any changes to the property as built, not in line with the plans, do not cause Mr and Mrs X a significant personal injustice warranting investigation. We do not investigate complaints about Council correspondence where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr and Mrs X want from their complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her dropped kerb application. We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: the Council failed to consider the impact ground floor windows would have on Mr B’s amenity and failed to consider its planning guidance when it granted planning permission for a development. An apology, payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mr and Mrs C complain the Council failed to properly consider a planning application which has caused them upset, professional costs and allowed an unacceptable development. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, £500 and a review of procedures provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council follows when serving enforcement notices. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant personal injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for new school buildings close to the complainant’s home. The is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s 2015 decision to grant a change of use permission for a property across the road from his house. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks from his complaint.

Summary: We found no fault in how the Council reached its decisions not to take enforcement action against development near Mr X’s home.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council failed to carry out a review of a planning application it considered in 2016, despite promising to do so. The Council has now resolved the matter by completing its review. We will not investigate how the Council considered the planning application or about any conclusions it reached in its recent review. This is because the permission was granted too long ago, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate this now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of reports of breaches of planning control on the complainant’s property. We have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement to reduce the height of a boundary wall built by her neighbour which overshadows her garden. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision not to take enforcement action.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a retrospective planning application for development on land behind his home. We did not investigate the complaint further because we are unlikely to find fault, recommend a remedy or achieve any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: Mr D complains errors by the Council resulted in a telecommunications mast being erected near his home. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council has already accepted it was at fault, has apologised and taken steps to ensure the error does not reoccur.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take planning and building control enforcement action in relation to his neighbour’s development. We completed our investigation as there was no fault in the way the Council made its decisions.

Summary: Mr and Mrs A complain errors by the Council resulted in a telecommunications mast being erected near their home. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council has already accepted it was at fault, apologised and taken steps to ensure the error does not reoccur.

Summary: Mr C complains errors by the Council resulted in a telecommunications mast being erected near his home. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council has already accepted it was at fault, has apologised and taken steps to ensure the error does not reoccur.

Summary: Mr B complains errors by the Council resulted in a telecommunications mast being erected near his home. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council has already accepted it was at fault, has apologised and taken steps to ensure the error does not reoccur.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate or take appropriate enforcement action in relation to an unlawful mobile home on land next to a property he is purchasing. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s concerns about a breach of planning control.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council decision to approve a minor material amendment planning application. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is made too late. Also, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaint.

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

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant is not complaining as a member of the public.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to demolish part of the complainant’s wall. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant personal injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s discharge of condition and retrospective 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 have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against any delays in determining his applications, and he has already appealed against the imposition of Community Infrastructure Levy surcharges.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for listed building consent. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because the complaint is late and we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge a planning condition. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.