London Borough of Enfield (20 007 993)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 04-Mar-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed in dealing with a planning application for a small housing development, is guilty of abuse of process, and failure to communicate with him properly. The Council has refused the application as Mr X wanted. It has appropriately acknowledged its fault and failure of service to Mr X and apologised.

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.

London Borough of Croydon (20 011 011)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 03-Mar-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because part of the complaint is late. Nor are we likely to find fault with the Council. And part of the complaint is a private matter between Mrs Q and her neighbours.

North Lincolnshire Council (20 003 699)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 03-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council decided a planning application next to her home. We found fault with the Council’s record keeping and that it failed to tell Mrs X about changes to the plans. The Council had apologised to Mrs X and it agreed to review the way it keeps records about site visits in planning applications. We were satisfied with the actions the Council agreed to, so we completed our investigation.

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.

South Gloucestershire Council (19 009 957)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 02-Mar-2021

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application, failed to follow the right process, failed to word a planning condition properly and showed bias when approving the planning application. There is no fault in how the Council considered the planning application.

Cambridge City Council (20 001 391)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 02-Mar-2021

Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mr X’s planning application. This is because Mr X has a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. Mr X can also contact the Information Commissioner’s Office if he is not satisfied with the Council’s response regarding an alleged data protection breach.

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.

South Kesteven District Council (20 005 496)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 02-Mar-2021

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint alleging fault in its handling of planning applications for the construction of dog kennels at a property.

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.