Birmingham City Council (25 012 742)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 26-May-2026

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mrs Y that the Council failed to respond to concerns raised about an extension to a neighbouring property in a timely way. He said the Council also failed to take appropriate enforcement action against the neighbour for an alleged breach of planning control. We found the Council at fault for the delay responding to Mr X’s complaint. It has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to both Mr X and Mrs Y in recognition of the avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused.

South Staffordshire District Council (25 023 586)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 26-May-2026

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council leaving a s.106 agreement in draft form when it refused Mr X’s planning application. Mr X used his right to appeal to the Planning Inspector and the matter complained of its not separable from that.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 017 584)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 25-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to add Mr X’s property to the local list because there is not enough evidence of fault.

London Borough of Camden (25 019 996)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 25-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered and responded to breaches of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council actions to warrant it, and the key injustice the complainant claims does not result from the Council’s actions as a planning authority but those of a third party.

Cornwall Council (26 002 781)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 25-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to take planning enforcement action against an alleged breached of planning control at a holiday park. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

Birmingham City Council (25 010 690)

Statement Not upheld Enforcement 21-May-2026

Summary: The Council is not at fault for the way it handled Mrs X’s reports of breaches of planning permission at a nearby house. This is because the Council did what it should have done.

London Borough of Merton (25 010 856)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 21-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a CIL Liability Notice to Mr X’s company. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Also, Mr X had the right to appeal against the surcharge which is reasonable to have expect him to use.

South Norfolk District Council (25 021 582)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 21-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement. This is because there is no evidence the Council is at fault and any injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Tewkesbury Borough Council (25 022 373)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 21-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (25 011 838)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 20-May-2026

Summary: Mrs D complained about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement notice and other planning control concerns for a neighbouring development. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its views, it therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. However, it failed to provide updates as agreed and caused a short delay in the process which was a service failure. The Council will apologise to Mrs D to acknowledge the impact this had on her.