Summary: the Council failed to consult Mrs B on a planning application and there is no evidence it properly considered the impact a development would have on her amenity. That denied Mrs B an opportunity to make representations which might have resulted in changes to the application although it would likely not have resulted in the Council refusing the application. An apology and payment to Mrs B is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

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: Mrs X complains the Council failed to consult with the Coal Authority and misrepresented its views in its Officer Report. She also complains the Council misadvised the Planning Committee, affecting how the Committee considered the application. We have not found the Council misadvised the Planning Committee. We have found the Council at fault for failing to formally consult with the Coal Authority, but we do not believe this caused a significant injustice. We have recommended the Council act to improve its services.

Summary: Mr X and Mrs Y complain the Council failed to carry out a full assessment about overlooking and privacy issues with new neighbouring flats. We find fault with the Council for delay in completing the investigation and the complaint response, and poor communication. This caused frustration and distress to Mr X and Mrs Y, and we have agreed remedies for the injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application near her home. She also complained there was delay addressing a complaint she made. We found there was no fault in the way the Council reached its planning decisions. However, there was some delay addressing an enforcement complaint. This did not cause significant injustice to Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a prior approval application for telecommunications equipment to be sited close to Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour for breaching a planning condition regarding window blinds. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. The planning outcome does not cause a sufficiently significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council wrongly charged a developer a Community Infrastructure Levy. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council granting planning permission for the conversion of a neighbouring house to a house in multiple occupation. She complains the Council did not consult her. And its decision ignored some inaccuracies in the application and its own policy. The Ombudsman’s decision is there was fault in the Council not notifying Ms B of the application. The Council has already offered a suitable remedy for that fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to resolve a planning breach that occurred near his home. We have found fault with the Council for not taking adequate steps before reaching the decision to not take formal enforcement action.

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 X complained the Council failed to consider local residents when it approved plans for a new housing development. We found no fault in the Council’s decision-making.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure adequate noise protection measures for his home when it granted planning permission. We found no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainants have not suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault. It is also unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s neighbour’s planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence to fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) sums due in relation to his planning applications, it not telling him how to appeal, not giving him the evidence it used to make the first CIL decision for a year, and its delay in deciding his planning applications. Mr X had appeal rights to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) on the CIL matters. That was the body better placed to consider those issues. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate on the Council’s decision about his development commencement date, and on the grounds of non‑determination regarding delays in deciding his planning applications. We also cannot achieve the key outcome Mr X seeks.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not properly deal with a planning application near her home. The Council is at fault because information published about the application was incorrect. This did not cause injustice to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and breach of planning control. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s defence of a planning appeal hearing. We cannot investigate matters which have been decided by Planning Inspectors acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. We cannot investigate a complaint about the Council’s refusal of discretionary council tax reduction. This has been subject to an appeal decision made by the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for an extension to a property next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the operation of a nursery in Ms X’s area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.