Bristol City Council (21 010 585)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 24-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council was taking too long to investigate complaints about unlawful houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in its area. We found fault because there was unreasonable delay in enforcement investigations. The Council has agreed to a remedy, to resolve the injustice caused by the fault we found.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 018 110)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 23-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we cannot yet determine if the complainant has suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Stroud District Council (21 000 264)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 23-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not taken enforcement action against a neighbouring development. He says the developer breached planning conditions and left spoil and shipping containers on site, which impacts on his enjoyment of the area. The Ombudsman finds fault in the delays and lack of communication in the Council’s enforcement investigation.

South Gloucestershire Council (21 004 659)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 23-Mar-2022

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not appropriately consider the impact of a neighbouring development on her residential amenity, before approving the application. As a result, there is an unacceptable loss of her privacy. The Council is at fault. It has agreed to approach Mrs X’s neighbour to offer to pay for the window to be obscure glazed. If the neighbour does not agree to this, it will pay Mrs X £3,000 to acknowledge the enduring impact and loss of privacy caused. It will also make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the distress caused and the time and trouble she has gone to pursuing her complaint.

South Derbyshire District Council (21 010 440)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 23-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application and associated enforcement matters relating to a site next to the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council directly causing the complainant a significant injustice.

Birmingham City Council (21 018 210)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 22-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Waverley Borough Council (21 016 869)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 22-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s planning application. This is because Ms X had appeal rights to the Planning Inspector which we would reasonably have expected her to have used.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 900)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 22-Mar-2022

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s delay in dealing with a planning breach. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 007 497)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 22-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions to issue a Certificate of Lawfulness of existing use of development and not to prosecute the applicant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Canterbury City Council (21 012 062)

Statement Upheld Building control 22-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr X complains the Council completed a building control enforcement investigation into a neighbouring property without considering the evidence he had on the building works. There was fault by the Council because it did not consider information from Mr X. I recommend the Council reopens its enforcement investigation to take account of the information Mr X has.