London Borough of Merton (19 004 088)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 28-Jan-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Ms B’s complaint about the Council failing to promptly investigate her report of a failure to comply with a planning condition. The Council failed to show it properly considered whether to use its discretionary enforcement power for a failure to provide sound insulation testing. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. It was not fault for refusing to act on other parts of the condition or her report of building regulation breaches.

Leeds City Council (19 009 388)

Statement Not upheld Enforcement 27-Jan-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mr H’s complaint about it wrongly refusing to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour who installed children’s climbing and play equipment close to the joint boundary. The Council visited the site, took photographs, and considered the courts’ approach to assessing whether this was a development for planning control purposes.

Shropshire Council (18 016 914)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 22-Jan-2020

Summary: Ms B complains the Council failed to ensure developers complied with a legal agreement to provide play areas for the housing estate where she lives with her young children. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault in failing to enforce the agreement. However, there were delays and communication failings by the Council and these caused injustice for Ms B. To remedy this the Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms B and to keep her updated with progress of this matter.

Castle Point Borough Council (19 007 175)

Statement Not upheld Enforcement 21-Jan-2020

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not taken planning enforcement action against a nearby dental practice. We do not find fault in how the Council has considered the case for enforcement. While we find the Council has not always provided good customer service to Mr B, we also consider there is insufficient evidence to justify a finding of fault causing him an injustice.

Aylesbury Vale District Council (19 013 758)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 21-Jan-2020

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council has unreasonably threatened planning enforcement action against her for her use of her land. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because any enforcement notice can be appealed to a Planning Inspector.

Wokingham Borough Council (19 013 481)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 21-Jan-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to take planning enforcement action against him. This is because the complaint is late, and Mr X has exercised the legal remedy available to him. The complaint is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate.

Birmingham City Council (19 008 957)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 20-Jan-2020

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a neighbour for a fence built without planning permission. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Pendle Borough Council (19 013 597)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 20-Jan-2020

Summary: Ms X complains about surveillance carried out by the Council and the threat of a Section 215 notice due to the condition of her property. The Ombudsman does not propose to investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.

Somerset West and Taunton Council (19 008 109)

Statement Not upheld Enforcement 17-Jan-2020

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the council dealt with a planning application for a change of use. There was no fault by the Council.

Swindon Borough Council (17 002 757)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 14-Jan-2020

Summary: Mr C says the Council wrongly granted planning permission for an extension to his neighbour’s house which blocked daylight from his kitchen. He says this has affected his enjoyment of it. The Council was at fault for having an unclear policy, for a failure to inform its planning committee of that policy, and for breach of an undertaking to enforce a breach of planning permission. This caused Mr C injustice both because he has lost confidence in the Council and because of the time he has spent pursuing the matter. The Council should pay him a sum in consideration of his trouble, fulfil its undertaking to enforce the breach and review the relevant policy.