Summary: Y complained about the Council’s response to their report of a planning control breach. They say there were delays by the Council and a failure to properly investigate the report. We have not found fault by the Council in the way it made its decision. We have found fault, causing injustice, regarding its delays and failure to complete the investigation in accordance with its enforcement policy. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and making a payment to Y to reflect their upset, time and trouble and a service improvement.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take enforcement action against a developer, who built houses closer than the distance set out in the planning case officer’s report. We found fault but could not show it caused a significant injustice we should remedy or made any difference to the outcome of the Council’s planning decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to inform him of planning enforcement issues at a property he has since bought. This is because the injustice Mr X claims is too speculative for us to remedy, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement notice, its refusal of her retrospective planning application, its advice to submit that application and how it dealt with her complaint. Miss X lodging her appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the planning refusal and enforcement notice takes these matters outside our jurisdiction. We cannot investigate the Inspectorate’s decision that her appeal was late. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in it advising her to submit a retrospective planning application to warrant investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

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: Mr C said the Council was responsible for administrative failures which he said caused the Council to wrongly grant permission for a house which overshadows his own property. He says that, despite assurances from the chairman of the Council’s planning committee, planning officers failed to rectify these failures and then discharged a planning condition which would have rectified the failures before it could do so. On the evidence seen, the Council was at fault for some errors during the processing of the application, but this fault did not cause Mr and Mrs C injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to consult residents on proposed changes to the highway. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and the complainant has not suffered sufficient personal injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to take action against the complaint’s neighbour, whom she says damaged her property when building an extension and installing a dropped kerb. We have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Also, if the complainant believes the Council is responsible for repairing her drive, she can make a claim on the Council’s insurance. If that fails, she can ask the court to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a prior approval 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 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: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement action resulting in loss of enjoyment of his garden and impacting his late wife’s health. We found the Council at fault because it did not have adequate records to show it properly investigated Mr X’s complaint. We recommended it apologise to Mr X, pay him £150 for distress and take action both to address Mr X’s concerns and to prevent recurrence.

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

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning and enforcement processes. Mr X has used his rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the enforcement notices and the Council’s refusal of planning permission, which takes all related matters outside our jurisdiction. We will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about how the Council dealt with his complaint. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because we cannot investigate matters relating to court proceedings. The complainant also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate and timely enforcement action regarding a breach of planning control near his home. Mr X says this has created a danger to road users, is unsightly, and cost him time and effort progressing the matter with the Council. We find the Council at fault for significant delays in acting and updating Mr X. We recommend it apologises to Mr X, pays him £200 for uncertainty and acts to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a building control matter. From the information we have seen further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. And it is reasonable to expect the complainant to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider his complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information he is seeking.

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 about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for two new properties next to the complainant’s property. The Planning Officer report shows the Council considered the relevant legislation and the objections received before deciding to approve the application. Without fault in the process, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

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.