Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pursuit of a project which the complainant says was bound to fail. The financial cost to the Council is something which affects all residents and is therefore outside our jurisdiction. Also, we do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement. Finally, it is reasonable to expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office with his concerns about the Council’s refusal to provide information he requested.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s consultation on a planning application. Nor do we consider the complainant has suffered any injustice as she has submitted her objections to the application for the Council’s consideration. Further investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action while the retrospective application is pending.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development which will impact on parking availability in Ms X’s local area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr D complained about the Council’s activities within its crematorium’s yard. He said it had failed to obtain relevant planning permissions and caused a noise disturbance to its neighbours. We found the Council failed to ensure its activities within the yard did not cause neighbours a noise disturbance, and it failed to assess if it caused a statutory nuisance. We cannot criticise the merits of the Council’s decision that no material change or intensification of use took place, only a court can do so. The Council should apologise to Mr D, make payment to acknowledge the distress it caused, and assess whether a statutory noise nuisance exists.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to enable his business to get suitable traffic access, and the Commission for New Towns allowed land to be developed which caused flooding on his land in the 1980s and 1990s. The complaint about the Council is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. We did not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints about the defunct Commission for New Towns.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s rear extension and dormer. The injustice caused to Miss X by the planning decision and the neighbouring development is not sufficient to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approval of a building regulations application. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions as breaches of party wall agreements are civil matters between neighbours and it is not for the Council to intervene.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the consultation process carried out by the Council for its draft town centre framework. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Councill’s response.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to enforce a planning condition. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision not to take enforcement action.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s officers approving development changing an agricultural building to housing use near his home. We found fault as the Council’s officers should have referred the application to the planning committee for decision. However, we did not find this caused Mr X injustice as the Council’s planning committee probably would have made the same decision.

Summary: We will not 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. We will also not consider the complainant’s concerns the Council breached a legal agreement as the matter is better dealt with by the courts.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to enforce a planning condition. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision not to take enforcement action.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to enforce a planning condition. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision not to take enforcement action.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to enforce a planning condition. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision not to take enforcement action.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that the design of the replacement windows Mr X wants to fit to his house in a conservation area are not acceptable. We cannot decide this disagreement, which is a matter for the planning system to resolve. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council mishandled his neighbour’s planning application. He also says the Council provided misleading and inconsistent information about the reasons for its decision. We have not found fault with the way the Council administered the planning application. We have found fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X about this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to consider if a telecommunication monopole required prior approval. This is because we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation, could not achieve the outcome the complainant seeks and because any fault has not caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action to seek the installation of an access path from a nearby residential development on to recreational land. Even if there has been Council fault, the outcome does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice warranting an investigation and there are insufficient public interest grounds for us to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to demolish some garages and replace them with a holiday property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action and we do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrant our involvement. Finally the law says we cannot investigate something which affects all or most of the people in a council’s area.

Summary: Mr X complains about the time taken to validate and determine his planning applications by the Council. Mr X said it has taken the Council significantly longer than average and says the Council discriminated against him. Mr X also complains about how the Council handled his complaint. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault by the Council. Although we could not see any evidence Mr X had been discriminated against, the Council could have better handled Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to the recommendations proposed.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action, resulting in his suffering loss of privacy and anti social behaviour. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council mishandled planning applications and enforcement matters at a neighbouring development. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation. That is because further consideration would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot add to the Council’s investigation.