Enforcement archive 2015-2016


Archive has 303 results

  • North Kesteven District Council (15 009 007)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the planning application for the land behind Mrs A's home. There is also no evidence of fault in the Council's decision not to take over the maintenance of a tree belt planted in 1997.

  • Horsham District Council (14 020 108)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Council was at fault in its handling of both planning applications for, and Ms X's complaint about, development of land. The Council should apologise to Ms X but, its faults did not cause the key injustice about which Ms X complains.

  • Weymouth and Portland Borough Council (15 016 023)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his father in law (Mr Y) about development at the back of his house. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the planning application for the house is out of time and there is no maladministration in the way the Council considered the planning application for the garage.

  • Torridge District Council (15 019 735)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 31-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council not taking enforcement action to remove a sign on a wind turbine which breaches a planning condition. It is doubtful there is administrative fault and there is no significant injustice.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (15 013 550)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 30-Mar-2016

    Summary: I do not uphold Mr C's complaint about the way the Council has dealt with planning breaches at a nearby development as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Preston City Council (15 011 653)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 29-Mar-2016

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council for not taking enforcement action against one of the residents on the estate where Mr Y lives.

  • West Lancashire Borough Council (15 017 006)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 29-Mar-2016

    Summary: It is too late now to investigate the Council's alleged failure to deal with a breach of planning control reported to it in 2014. The Council took proper action in 2015 and, without continuing complaints, it had no reason to suspect unauthorised activities had resumed.

  • Cornwall Council (15 002 324)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 29-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman has found that that the Council has not properly investigated whether the works Mr B's neighbour carried out to his home are a breach of planning control. The Council has agreed to undertake a further planning enforcement investigation. It has also asked his neighbour to submit a building regulations application to regularise the works. However, whether the works trespass on Mr B's property is a private legal matter between him and his neighbour.

  • Leeds City Council (15 013 104)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 24-Mar-2016

    Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complain the Council failed to use planning controls to ensure adequate bin storage for developments near their home. There was fault in the way the Council acted, which it has agreed to remedy.

  • Blackpool Borough Council (15 001 273)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 24-Mar-2016

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to use its powers to control properties either side of his home which changed from self contained holiday apartments to become permanently occupied. Mr X also complained, the Council had failed to properly respond to his complaint. The Council has now provided an explanation of its position. There was no fault in the Council's decision that it has no power to control the current use of the two properties.

;