Summary: Mr F complained about how the Council dealt with his report of a breach of planning control by his neighbour and the outcome of its investigation. We found the Council at fault for causing an unnecessary delay to investigate the breach. However, there was no fault in the process it followed to reach its view. It therefore made a decision it was entitled to make. The Council should apologise to Mr F and make payment to remedy the distress and uncertainty he experienced as a result of its delays.

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: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate a report of a breach of planning control. The Council confirms there is an open investigation. Therefore, further investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications for extensions at a property next to the complainant. There is not enough evidence to conclude fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome, so the complainant has not suffered an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consult residents on a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint as we have seen insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to consultation by the District Council about his neighbour’s planning application. This is because we could not say the Council’s actions have caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension to a neighbouring property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take appropriate action against an outbuilding built by one of its tenants. This is primarily because we cannot investigate complaints about the Council’s management of its social housing, and the alleged faults have not caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application in the area where the complainant lives. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the application. Also, as the Council has not yet issued the planning approval, the complainant has not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the lack of an external refuse storage area for Ms X’s flat. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a Lawful Development Certificate to Mr X’s neighbour. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to a boundary dispute. This is because the matter relates to the Council’s provision and ownership of social housing.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to correct a breach of planning control. Also it is too late to consider complaints about decisions to grant planning permission made more than four years ago. Finally, we are satisfied that an apology for the delay in updating the complainant of the progress of a planning enforcement investigation is a suitable remedy for this part of the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council was wrong to treat a dangerous structure on his land as an emergency and to carry out works to it without first giving Mr X the opportunity or applying to the magistrates’ court for permission. This is because the court is better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a property next door to become a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), the HMO licensing and how it dealt with her complaints. There is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s planning process or planning committee’s decision-making to warrant investigation. There is insufficient personal injustice caused to her by any fault in the HMO licensing consultation process, nor by delay in responses to questions about an infestation at the property, to justify us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ correspondence and complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to the complainant request for information. We consider an investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application in 2021. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

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

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a retrospective planning application. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s response to his report about a developer building a children’s play area near his property. Mr C says he has an inappropriate development too close to his home and will suffer from a loss of privacy which will affect the saleability and value of his property. We have ended our investigation as we have found insufficient evidence of injustice as a direct result of any fault by the Council and because we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council considered a planning application at a neighbouring property. Mr X said the Council failed to properly consider the impact of a loss of light to his solar panels and a habitable room. We find the Council at fault for inaccuracies in the planning case officer’s report, but we are satisfied the Council’s apology is enough to recognise the injustice this has caused.

Summary: The complaint is about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for the change of use of land. We found no fault in the decision-making process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council disregarded evidence in coming to its decision on a planning application with which Ms X has been concerned. 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 about the Council deciding not to take planning enforcement action against a developer for breaching planning conditions. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application and its decision to refuse planning permission. This is because Mr X has appealed against the Council’s decision. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s advice because there is not enough evidence of fault and the advice did not cause Mr X significant injustice.