Summary: We found fault on the complaint made by Mr B on behalf of Mr and Mrs C about the way the Council considered the neighbour’s application to discharge a planning condition. It failed to check whether the report received was amended or show it considered there was a satisfactory solution to the development’s impact. There was no evidence of the tree protection and mitigation measures officers agreed. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. It is also unlikely an investigation would 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 the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector if she disagrees with the planning decision. We are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We found fault on Mrs B’s complaint about the way the Council considered a Minor Material Amendment application for a neighbour’s development. It failed to record her concerns made during a call, pass them to the decision maker, or carry out a third site visit. It missed an opportunity to establish the correct site ground levels and did not deal with her complaint correctly. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. I am satisfied it considered her main representations and properly considered whether this was the correct application to make.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action following Mr X’s reports of unauthorised parking on land which was formerly hedgerow. 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’s response to Mr X’s query concerning a new housing development’s proximity to an existing culverted watercourse. 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’s decision to allow extended operating hours at Biggin Hill Airport. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and there is no realistic prospect of carrying out a sound investigation into events which occurred approximately 8 years ago.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning advice and the Council’s planning decisions because part of the complaint is out of time and there was a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector which he used.

Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council advertised a planning application, matters which were not considered when the Council granted planning permission and about its failure to take enforcement action. There is no evidence fault by the Council affected either the decision to grant planning permission or the decision not to take enforcement action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Community Charge Levy (CIL) because the matter is out of time and could be appealed to a Planning Inspector.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decisions relating to development behind X’s home. X said that their amenity is affected by some parts of the development. We did not investigate this complaint further as enforcement action is ongoing and we were unlikely to find fault, recommend a remedy or reach any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: X complained the Council had failed to take planning enforcement action and properly reply to X’s correspondence. We found fault causing an injustice to X that the Council has agreed to remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained development on neighbouring land causes flooding to his garden. We found no fault in the Council’s consideration of neighbouring drainage and landscaping plans, or their impact on Mr X. However, the Council was at fault for significant delays investigating Mr X’s planning enforcement complaints.

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. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s flawed decision-making process when it approved a neighbouring planning application. We have not found the Council to be at fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his request to release restrictive covenants on his property. We find the Council at fault for failing to have a process in place for dealing with these requests. We also find the Council at fault for delays in responding to Mr X, for delays in reaching a final decision, and for failing to provide clear explanations. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused, and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development and a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.