Enforcement


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Cornwall Council (16 018 059)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 09-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr L's complaint against the Council about it wrongly granting a neighbour a Lawful Development Certificate for an outbuilding. The Council failed to properly consider whether the intended use of the outbuilding came within permitted development. I am not satisfied this caused Mr L a significant injustice. The Council responded properly to reports of breaches.

  • South Staffordshire District Council (17 009 425)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 09-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as Mrs X has a right of appeal against any planning enforcement notice issued by the Council which it would be reasonable for her to use.

  • London Borough of Lewisham (16 017 274)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 09-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's failure to take enforcement action for a breach of planning control. The Council acknowledges fault and has made a suitable offer to remedy Ms X's injustice.

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (17 003 199)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 06-Oct-2017

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council began enforcement action against her for a breach of a planning condition and this caused her neighbour to pursue her for breach of a sale agreement. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the breach of planning control.

  • Wycombe District Council (17 008 778)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 05-Oct-2017

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has served a planning enforcement notice upon him and has not sought to resolve the matter informally before doing so. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he has a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector and seek costs for any unreasonable action by the Council.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (17 008 774)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 05-Oct-2017

    Summary: Ms X complains that she was not notified of an extension built by her neighbour. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault. Part of the complaint is settled.

  • London Borough of Ealing (16 014 720)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 05-Oct-2017

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to take into account his disability when serving a planning enforcement notice. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there was a right of appeal to the courts.

  • Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (17 003 869)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 03-Oct-2017

    Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it investigated the complaint Mr B made about a planning enforcement visit. The Council will apologise within one month of this decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the conduct of the planning enforcement visit to make a finding.

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (16 017 453)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 03-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Council properly investigated complaints about unauthorised dog boarding, breeding, noise nuisance and CCTV installation. It took appropriate actions to end the unauthorised activities but was hampered by delays outside its control and weaknesses in the powers available to it under the relevant legislation.

  • London Borough of Harrow (17 002 035)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 29-Sep-2017

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has unreasonably failed to take planning enforcement action against a social club for its unauthorised use of floodlights. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

;