Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (20 010 756)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 04-Mar-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against his neighbour’s summerhouse and platform. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the process it followed to consider and make its discretionary decision on the matter to warrant our investigation.

Mid Devon District Council (19 010 764)

Statement Not upheld Enforcement 04-Mar-2021

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision making over alleged breaches of the planning permission for a barn until December 2019. The Council is still investigating complaints about noise from the building and says if further commercial vehicle repair activity is reported to the planning department it will investigate further. Mr and Mrs B say the noise disturbs the peaceful enjoyment of their home.

Durham County Council (20 001 144)

Statement Not upheld Enforcement 03-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with a planning application from a nearby business and the issuing of an abatement notice relating to statutory noise nuisance. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Broadland District Council (20 004 143)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 02-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out enforcement action over an unauthorised forestry business since 2009. Mr X says this caused he and his family physical and mental stress due to noise from machinery and inhalation of smoke from large fires. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. The Ombudsman does find fault with the Council responding to Mr X’s complaint 20 weeks late. The Council agreed to provide Mr X with an apology, a payment of £100 and provide training to its staff on complaint handling.

Wokingham Borough Council (20 005 800)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 02-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to take enforcement action against a breach of a condition by a developer. There was fault by the Council because of unreasonable delay before it concluded its planning enforcement investigation. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

North West Leicestershire District Council (20 010 803)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 02-Mar-2021

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to respond properly to complaints he raised about a licenced premises. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint as it is more than 12 months since Mr X received a final response from the Council.

Wiltshire Council (20 010 095)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 01-Mar-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to enforce against a developer for some of the bollards installed on the estate where she lives. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way they made their decision to warrant our investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 495)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 26-Feb-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Brentwood Borough Council (20 003 351)

Statement Not upheld Enforcement 24-Feb-2021

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to take planning enforcement action swiftly enough to prevent unauthorised development at a site near to her property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so we have completed our investigation.

North East Derbyshire District Council (20 003 123)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 20-Feb-2021

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not provide him with notice of the changes to the planning permission for the proposed properties next to his. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for not telling Mr X of changes to the planning permissions. Mr X also complained the Council failed to consider the impact on his amenity and privacy of a balcony proposed as part of the plans for the development. The Ombudsman found fault as the Council failed to consider the impact of the balcony on Mr X’s privacy. The Council should offer to plant a tree on Mr X’s land to act as a screen. The Council should also provide Mr X with an apology and a payment of £100 for the frustration and inconvenience caused.