Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to consult him on changes to a planning application and failed to consider how the development would impact on his amenity. The report for the planning application does not refer to the impact on Mr B’s amenity, which is fault. It is unlikely that affected the outcome of the planning application. An apology, payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mr D wants the Council to take enforcement action for breaches of planning control at a nearby site. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint. The Council has acted in line with procedures.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement matters in relation to a site opposite his home. We will not investigate the complaint because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation into more recent matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a non-material amendment to planning permission. Mr X could have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly consider the comments of a parish council in relation to a planning application. We cannot investigate complaints by parish councils which are authorities constituted for the purposes of public service and not individual complainants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in determination and refusal of Mr X’s planning applications. It was reasonable for him to appeal to a government minister for the delay and the decisions on his applications.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow its planning policy when it approved his neighbour’s application for a basement extension. We found fault and have made recommendations to remedy the injustice it caused and to avoid recurrence of the fault.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council, in granting planning permission for a development next to his property, failed to properly consider how it would impact on his amenity. The report for the application contains an inaccuracy which affected the Council’s consideration of the impact on Mr B’s kitchen and the Council failed to consider the impact on Mr B’s solar panels. That did not likely affect the outcome. An apology, payment to Mr B and training for planning officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to control development on her neighbour’s land. We did not investigate further, because the planning process is ongoing and we are also unlikely to find fault, change the outcome or recommend a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because the injustice Mr X claims stems from the actions of his neighbour rather than any fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s planning applications. He has the statutory right of appeal to the planning inspectorate about the Council’s refusal, and it is reasonable for him to approach the high court for judicial review.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of planning matters related to his garage, causing him distress and putting him to time and trouble. We do not have jurisdiction to investigate matters subject to court proceedings. We found the Council at fault in its communications with Mr X. We recommended the Council apologise to Mr X.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the way the Council considered planning applications for development to their neighbour’s home. Mr and Mrs B say the development was larger than allowed in a green belt area. They say that to prevent loss of privacy they have needed to grow trees in their garden much higher, which in turn blocks light. They say the property is overbearing. At this stage, we find fault in how the Council considered the impact on the greenbelt and that this caused an injustice to Mr and Mrs B. However, we do not find fault in how the Council considered the impact on Mr and Mrs B’s amenity.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council approved a planning application without adequately addressing his objections about loss of light and overshadowing. We do not find fault with the Council causing a significant personal injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a Certificate of Lawfulness for Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) to his neighbour, or its decision to not take enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of Council fault, nor sufficient personal injustice to Mr X, to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of Council officers in their handling of a planning application. This is because there is no evidence fault by the Council has caused Ms X significant injustice and because matters concerning Council responses to FOI requests can be referred to the Information Commissioner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s administration of a building control matter. Mr X’s claimed injustice stems from the Council’s decisions on the case, which we have previously investigated, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. The Information Commissioner is better placed to decide if the Council has breached the General Data Protection Regulations.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of two planning applications. The Council’s actions in dealing with the first planning application, which it refused, did not cause Ms X significant injustice and it has not yet decided the second application. We could not therefore achieve any worthwhile outcome for her by investigating the matter further.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s use of site notices to publicise planning applications. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we could not say its actions caused Miss X significant injustice.

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 and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate as the complainant is complaining on behalf of a parish council and not as a member of the public.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that an agricultural building is permitted development. Nor in the way it considered a Prior Approval application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s requirement for separate initial notices for two properties in relation to building regulation applications. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in how it handled planning matters regarding the protection of bat populations. It considered all the relevant information and decided that the applicant had not breached the planning condition.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the publicising of a planning application and the decision not to take enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.