Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to protect her amenity when it approved a planning application for an extension including a dormer roof extension on a house behind her home. We found fault, but for which the Council would have refused the application. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the complaint by paying for the impact on value the development had on Mrs X’s home. The Council also agreed to review its service considering what has happened and it will make any changes necessary to avoid recurrence. The Council will inform us and its own scrutiny committee of the outcome of the review.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour to add a large roof extension to his property in breach of its policy. We found the Council was at fault in that it failed to properly consider the law and its own policy. But for this fault, the Council would not have approved the application. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development in the next road along from where the complainant lives. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice. Nor would further investigation add to that already conducted by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise nuisance because an investigation would not be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion and the Council has amended their practices.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for works on land which the complainant says the applicant did not own. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has directly caused significant injustice to the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. 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 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 Mr X’s complaint about planning enforcement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action on a temporary car park operated by her local hospital without planning permission. The Council was not at fault in the approach it took to considering Miss X’s planning enforcement complaint. The Council was at fault for delays.

Summary: Mr X complained about inaccuracies in information about a planning application and the way the Council made its decision to grant permission for the development. We have found fault by the Council in including an inaccurate measurement in its planning report and failing to keep a record of a site visit. We do not consider this fault affected the outcome of the application, but it has caused Mr X the injustice of avoidable concern and upset about the decision making process. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising, making a payment to Mr X to reflect this distress, and service improvements.

Summary: Mr D complains about a planning committee meeting in 2022. We have ended the investigation because it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr B says the Council wrongly accepted a planning application without an accurate title, failed to notify him of changes to the application and failed to consider how two applications would impact on his amenity. There is no fault in the Council accepting the first application or in how it considered how the development would impact on Mr B. The Council was at fault for not consulting Mr B on amended plans. The remedy the Council has already put in place is satisfactory.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications for a site in Mr X’s locale. This is because the injustice caused to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant an investigation and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against her neighbour’s unlawful use of land next to her home. I found no evidence of fault in the way the Council has acted.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council made a planning decision for development on land near her home. We found faults that caused an injustice, though we cannot say that the outcome of the Council’s planning decision would have been different. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X for any disappointment and confusion it caused. It also agreed to carry out a review to ensure its working practices and procedures are robust and fit for purpose to avoid recurrence of the faults in future.

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 how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement action as there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice and its decision to take enforcement action against the complainant. This is because parts of the complaint are late. The complainant also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.