Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of the planning application process relating to his home and subsequent enforcement action. There was service failure which meant the correct information was not published on the Council’s planning portal. The Council also took too long to respond to Mr X’s concerns and complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X for the delay and uncertainty caused. It will also ensure its ongoing planning enforcement investigation is progressed in a timely way and will keep Mr X regularly updated on its progress.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports of planning breaches. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Officers pressured planning committee Members to achieve a favourable outcome for the applicant. From the information we have seen it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consider the impact of traffic noise when it approved plans for a change of use for a building in 2018. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner because he has experienced the noise since he occupied the property in 2020.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in a planning enforcement investigation. The Council has apologised for the delay which I consider appropriate. I do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice. I do not consider the delay in the investigation led directly to the breach of planning control being immune from prosecution.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council wrongly signed off building work to her property in 2008. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reject his proposed name changes for his property and how it dealt with his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making, or significant injustice to Mr X, to warrant investigation. We do not investigate council complaint-handling when not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant has not yet suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a development at a site near to Ms Y’s property causing distress and impact onto her amenity. We found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it considered the planning application. We found the fault in the way the Council responded to Ms Y’s complaints about the matter. We have suggested a suitable remedy in this case and so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X reported a breach of planning control and noise nuisance from a site near her home. We found no fault in how the Council reached its planning and noise nuisance decisions. The Council had already apologised to Mrs X for injustice caused by poor communication during its enforcement investigations and consideration of her 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: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a breach of planning control. There is insufficient injustice caused to the complainants to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action after her reports of a neighbour’s car sales. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process to warrant us investigating. A delay in the registration of Ms X’s complaint did not affect the enforcement decision and further investigation would not achieve a different outcome. We do not investigate council complaint‑handling or correspondence issues where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Summary: Mrs D complains about the Council’s consideration of an application for a telecommunication mast erected near her home. There was fault in how the Council dealt with the prior approval application for the mast. The fault meant the mast was approved when the Council’s intention had been to refuse it. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. There is no significant injustice to Mrs D and the action taken by the Council to improve procedures is a sufficient remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to properly consider a planning application. Although the Council was at fault, that did not cause the complainant a significant injustice.

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 injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement investigation. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs X says the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for refurbishment and changes to a premises, and it did not take enforcement action when she reported breaches to a section 106 agreement. She says the Council is now failing to act regarding noise and light pollution. We did not find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against a nearby garage for repeated breaches of planning control. We found fault with the Council for delays in handling Mr X’s enforcement case. The Council agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr X, pay him £250 and make a decision about what course of action to take on Mr X’s enforcement case.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application and her report of a possible breach of planning permission. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decisions.

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 this complaint the Council failed to publicise a planning application. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant permission for a new house with a clear‑glazed landing window near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision, or significant personal injustice caused to Ms X, to warrant investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome she seeks from her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications and her request for information. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to deal with the complainant’s concerns about how the Council dealt with her request for information.