Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for development at a property close to Mr X’s. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered the complainant’s planning application. We consider it reasonable to expect the complainant to have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate if she believes the decision to refuse her planning application is wrong.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a Planning Contravention Notice to the complainant. This is primarily because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the enforcement case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Ms X’s concerns of a flag flying at the town hall in breach of the planning rules. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his planning application. This is because Mr B has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: X complains about the way the Council has dealt with their communications about a planning decision made in 2020, and a subsequent complaint. We have concluded the investigation on the basis the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of planning enforcement because there is no evidence of fault causing significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of planning enforcement because there is no evidence of fault causing significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process and decision when dealing with his application. Mr X had a right of appeal against the Council’s planning decision to the Planning Inspectorate, which it would have been reasonable for him to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s building control service. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because the Council has not formally granted this application planning permission yet. This means it is too early to consider this complaint in detail.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The complaint is late and there is no reason to investigate after more than three years. Also, the complainant has the right to appeal to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration and approval of a proposal for a new conservation area put forward by a parish council. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the proposal. Nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about substandard building work carried out by the developer of her property. This is because the Council had no involvement in the building work and is not responsible for the injustice Mrs X claims.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a person accompanying a planning officer on a site visit. It is unlikely we would find Council fault which has caused her an injustice.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for an extension near X’s home. We found fault in the way the Council made its decision, but for which it is likely the outcome of its decision would have been different. We made a recommendation for a remedy for the injustice caused by the fault, which the Council has agreed to carry out.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant because of the delays. We will not investigate the remaining issues complained about as the complainant has appealed, or could have appealed, to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has considered its planning duties and responded to the complainant. We do not consider an investigation will lead to a different outcome. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to the complainant and offered him a meeting with a senior officer. We consider this is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint. Finally, we cannot award the damages Mr X is seeking, claim for damages are for the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of two planning applications determined over ten years ago with which Mr X is concerned. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council made an error when it discharged a planning condition attached to her planning permission. Mrs X says she suffered avoidable distress and would now incur unexpected time and costs in making a planning application. We have found fault by the Council but consider a symbolic payment and advice on next steps provides a suitable remedy in addition to the apology already provided by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application with which Mr X is 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 approving an application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning and building control matters. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault. The complainant can appeal if he disagrees with the decision from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not 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 Miss X’s complaint, brought by Mr Y, about the Council’s delay in deciding and its refusal of a planning application, and its responses to his complaint. As the applicant, Mr Y had rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination of the application and against the Council’s refusal of the permission, appeals which were not unreasonable for him to have used. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

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.