Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to investigate his reports about an alleged planning breach since December 2021. We have found evidence of significant delay by the Council and have upheld the complaint. We have completed the investigation because the Council agrees to pay redress to Mr D and take action.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council ignored his concerns about flood risk when it granted planning permission for a development. Mr X said the new development would cause flooding on his land. The Council was not at fault in the way it made its planning decision. Mr X has already appealed to a Tribunal which is better placed to consider a private drainage dispute. The Council was at fault for a record keeping delay, but the Council has already remedied this issue.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact of a planning application next to his home and has wrongly granted planning permission for the erection of a pair of three storey, four-bedroom semi-detached houses. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council determined this planning application. However the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint was fault, for which the Council has apologised.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take enforcement action against an incomplete development. The alleged fault has not caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with external insulation works on a neighbouring house which he said encroached on his house. Mr X also complained the Council delayed responding to his concerns. The Council was at fault for delay in appointing a surveyor to determine the boundary location. This caused Mr X uncertainty, frustration and avoidable time and trouble. The Council has accepted delay in appointing a surveyor and has already apologised to Mr X and will make a payment to Mr X. It will also appoint a surveyor which remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X and Mr Y complain the Council did not consult them about a development opposite their home. We found the Council was at fault. It has agreed a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in enforcing against a breach of planning control. It is reasonable for the complainants to use their right of appeal against enforcement notices, and to present their defence in court against planning enforcement orders. The courts are best placed to consider their claim for costs, and it is not a good use of public resources for us to investigate complaints processes in isolation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application in 2021. 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 it is not yet possible to determine if the complainant has suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of planning applications for a site since 2017. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate a complaint about the latest planning reserved matters application because this has not yet been determined.

Summary: The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council failed to take appropriate enforcement action against alleged breaches of planning conditions at a neighbouring property. We find the Council was at fault for a delay in investigating the report Mr X made. However, on balance we found the outcome was unlikely to have been different. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and review its procedures to ensure better communication between teams.

Summary: the Council failed to update the land charges register which meant Mr B was not made aware of a planning contravention notice which affected the property he purchased. An apology, payment to Mr B and procedural changes are satisfactory remedy.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land it controls. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action against a breach of planning control. 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 we are unlikely to find fault.

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 Mrs X’s complaint about the Council delaying its decision to grant her planning permission and how it gave confusing and conflicting information about whether her permission would be granted. Mrs X had formal appeal right to the Planning Inspectorate on grounds of non-determination which it was not unreasonable for her to have used.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the incorrect recording of the number of objections received to a planning application. We do not consider the complainant has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement. Nor do we consider we can add to the Council’s consideration of the complaint, or that an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making process when granting planning permission for her neighbour’s extension. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about planning applications which involved land ownership disputes. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate Mr X’s objections to a current application which has not been determined. There is insufficient injustice to investigate where no decision has been made.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about costs incurred by the complainant as a result of delay in determining his planning applications. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector, and to pursue his compensation claim in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the London Fire Commissioner (LFC) has refused to pursue the complainant’s concerns about amendments to a planning application for a dry riser inlet. There is not enough evidence of fault by the LFC causing the complainant a significant injustice.