Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to give proper consideration to a planning application at a neighbour’s property. She also said the Council failed to respond to reports of a breach of planning conditions. Ms X said this had impacted her residential amenity. She said this had an impact on biodiversity and protected species. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about alleged breaches of planning control by a neighbouring landowner. This is because the Council has explained the reasons it cannot take action and there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the landowner’s planning application from 2014 as it is unlikely we could effectively investigate the issue so long after the event or that we would find fault by the Council. We also cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a building control matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement because the matter has been appealed to a Planning Inspector (and other matters could have been appealed). Part of the complaint is also out of time.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice. This is because Mr X applied for planning permission against the Council’s recommendation and did not seek any further advice after correcting an error regarding the location of the proposal. The Council also made clear its advice was informal and non-binding and it was Mr X’s choice to incur costs to pursue a formal application. We could not therefore say the injustice he claims is the result of any fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council when determining a planning application, failed to properly consider the impact on her amenity and published comments from the applicant which she considered to be defamatory. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council approved a planning application without sufficiently protecting her neighbouring amenity and did not take enough action to address the developers breaches of planning control. We found some fault in how the Council considered the planning application. However, we cannot say whether the outcome would have been different, and it has since arranged for mitigations. There was no fault in the enforcement process, it therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his objections to his neighbour’s development, how it applied its own planning guidance, and its consideration of the development’s planning impacts on his property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process which would have affected the planning outcome to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council approved an extension to a neighbouring property which has caused her property significant loss of light. There was fault by the Council with the way it handled the planning application for the extension, however this did not cause injustice.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour, who had built a structure in breach of planning controls. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision that no further action was justified.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council approved a planning application without sufficiently protecting her neighbouring amenity and did not take enough action to address the developers breaches of planning control. We found some fault in how the Council considered the planning application. However, we cannot say whether the outcome would have been different, and it has since arranged for mitigations. There was no fault in the enforcement process, it therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision to allow development on their neighbour’s land. We did not continue our investigation as it was unlikely to result in a different outcome or a remedy for X.

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 its decision to grant planning permission.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

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 and he has not suffered any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s request for pre-application planning advice. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action against unauthorised development and use of neighbouring land. There was fault causing injustice due to the Council’s delays and lack of proper oversight of the enforcement investigations.

Summary: X complained a Council officer was involved in a planning decision, despite a conflict of interest. The monitoring officer agreed to investigate this matter, so we ended our investigation to allow them to complete their investigation. X may come back to us if they remain unhappy after the monitoring officer’s investigation is completed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to carry out a standards enquiry into the actions of staff members, who are alleged to have knowingly supplied false information during planning enforcement and council tax liability appeals. The alleged failure to conduct an enquiry does not cause the complainant a significant personal injustice, and we cannot involve ourselves in such disciplinary matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is delaying in responding to requests for information. This is because the Information Commissioner is the suitable body to consider this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to enforce against a neighbour’s garden works involving a planning breach, and how it dealt with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision‑making process to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. We also cannot achieve outcomes Mrs X seeks from the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant used his right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly investigate the siting of a storage container at a property adjacent to his home. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr D complains about the way the Council has dealt with planning matters relating to a development behind his home. There was fault in the way enforcement was undertaken which has caused uncertainty. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to re-visit the site. If a breach is found, Mr D may come back to the Ombudsman to consider if there is any unremedied injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the determination of a planning application because there was a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector and no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to address the complainant’s concerns about a business operating from a neighbouring council house. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the planning application for the business use or the subsequent reports of breaches of planning control, and the Council has addressed shortcomings in the associated complaint correspondence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) because the matter is out of time and there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in how it handled planning matters at a development near Mr B’s home.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to allow a telecommunications mast to be installed on land near her home. We ended our investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for Ms X or any other meaningful outcome.