Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to grant planning permission for an extension to a property behind the complainant’s home. We do not consider any injustice suffered by the complainant is sufficient to justify an investigation. Also, we do not consider it is a good use of public funds solely to seek an apology.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission as there is no evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council publicised and processed a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we order the Council to reconsider an approved planning application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant has appealed, or could have appealed, to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of various planning applications, including its refusal of Mr X’s own planning application. This is because his complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction and, in relation to his own application, we cannot investigate it because he exercised his appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate which places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement as there is a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector and the injustice is not sufficient to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr C complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a large residential development and its discharge of conditions several years ago. He also said it had failed to properly consider the concerns it received about the approved road layout’s impact on the wellbeing and safety of residents following a decision to keep a nearby connection to a highway open. We found Mr C’s concerns about the Council’s planning decisions were brought to us late. There was no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view not to reopen or seek amendment to the approved plans. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land near X’s home. We did not investigate the complaint further, because we were unlikely to find fault, recommend a remedy or reach any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action after it found a neighbouring business was operating in breach of planning conditions. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. We completed our investigation because we found no fault in the decision-making process.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application before granting planning permission. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.