Leeds City Council (19 016 553)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 27-Feb-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has not taken enforcement action against his neighbour Mr Y due to the height of their fence. The Council considers the fence is not high enough to be a breach of Mr Y’s permitted development rights. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the process it followed to make its decision. The Ombudsman cannot criticise a properly made professional judgement decision by a council.

Mole Valley District Council (19 017 001)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 27-Feb-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Leeds City Council (19 017 035)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 27-Feb-2020

Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to make his neighbour lower the height of decking in his garden. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint as we have not seen evidence of fault in process the Council followed before making its decision.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (19 015 727)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 26-Feb-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information about its decisions not to proceed with planning enforcement action against third parties. If Mr X believes he is entitled to the information it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Coventry City Council (19 003 483)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 26-Feb-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mrs D’s complaint of it failing to ensure land it allowed a contractor to use during road improvements was promptly returned to its previous condition through landscaping on completion. The Council did not promptly reply to her contact and failed to prepare and provide a copy of a work plan it agreed to do during a meeting in May 2019. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (19 008 508)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 25-Feb-2020

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider reports he made of noise from the use of a business unit. There was delay by the Council and it did not communicate with Mr X properly. However, the Council has since taken enforcement action to address the issues he identified. It has also taken steps to avoid delay and improve communication. These are reasonable actions to remedy the impact to Mr X.

Gedling Borough Council (18 014 098)

Statement Not upheld Enforcement 25-Feb-2020

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with a fence a neighbour erected. He alleged it encroached upon a right of way. We found there was no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions.

South Bucks District Council (19 005 427)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 25-Feb-2020

Summary: Mrs X complained about planning decisions the Council made and issues with notification and the information available to the public and consultees. The enforcement situation has been protracted and difficult in this case, but we found there was no fault by the Council. There was delay in the way the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It apologised for this which we considered to be a reasonable response to this issue.

Fylde Borough Council (19 012 040)

Statement Not upheld Enforcement 24-Feb-2020

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged it failed to recognise and implement the recommendations of the Planning Inspector and failed to take formal enforcement action following breaches of planning conditions by a developer.

Luton Borough Council (19 007 572)

Statement Not upheld Enforcement 20-Feb-2020

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered enforcement action against a business that installed a crane in its yard, close to Dr G’s property.