Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Upheld Enforcement 27-Nov-2020
Summary: The Council did not properly consider whether a developer had breached conditions attached to a planning permission. This is fault, but it did not cause injustice, because the matter was resolved as part of a subsequent planning application. There was no fault in how the Council considered whether there was a nuisance arising from fumes on the development site. The Council's complaint handling was unnecessarily complicated, but this did not cause injustice. For this reason, we have completed our investigation.
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 25-Nov-2020
Summary: Mr X, on behalf of Mrs Y, complains the Council has not followed the correct procedures when redeveloping an outdoor water play area and has failed to deal with complaints of noise nuisance from the play area. The Council used its professional judgement and took the view the works were permitted development and so no planning application or procedures were required. The Council investigated the noise complaints and decided no further action was justified as there was no statutory nuisance.
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 24-Nov-2020
Summary: Ms Y complains about the development of a new housing estate behind her property, which she says has not been built in accordance with the approved plans. The Council considered Ms Y's report of a possible breach of planning control, visited the site and measured the height and elevation of the houses being built. It decided there was no breach to enforce against. The Council followed its policy when considering whether to take enforcement action, and we do not uphold the complaint.
Statement Upheld Enforcement 20-Nov-2020
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's refusal to take planning enforcement action and its handling of his complaint. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in its decision making process and in its handling of Mr X's complaint. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology, makes a payment for time and trouble, reinvestigates Mr X's allegations and acts to prevent recurrence.
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 16-Nov-2020
Summary: The Council has not yet completed work to improve communication with residents about a local development, but this has not caused Mr X significant personal injustice.
Statement Upheld Enforcement 11-Nov-2020
Summary: Mr X complains the Council allowed a neighbouring business to install external lighting bollards, which shine into his home. He says the Council did not properly consider the impact of the bollards on his amenity and made errors in the way it dealt with the application. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council managed the planning procedure and in its response to Mr X's complaint.
Statement Upheld Enforcement 03-Nov-2020
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly respond to his neighbour's planning breach, eventually wrongly approving a retrospective planning application. He also says it failed to respond to his complaints about noise from his neighbour and delayed responding to his complaint. Mr X says this caused him an injustice as he now has two unsightly outbuildings along his fence line. The Council has apologised for delay and offered a remedy. We do not consider the remedy sufficient. We consider the Council partially remedied its initial failure to properly assess the development by addressing a retrospective application at planning committee. But it did not demonstrate it fully considered Mr X's objections. We have recommended a remedy.
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 02-Nov-2020
Summary: Mr X complains about an unauthorised use of land near his home. While the Council agrees there has been a material change of use that breaches planning control, it decided not to take enforcement action. Enforcement action is discretionary, and the Ombudsman found no fault in how the Council reached its decision not to act against the planning breach reported by Mr X.
Statement Upheld Enforcement 29-Oct-2020
Summary: The Council is at fault as it failed to carry out its own investigation into whether Mr Y's occupancy of an annexe at Mr X's property breached a planning condition. The Council also failed to take account of Mr Y's disabilities and vulnerability. The faults caused distress and avoidable time and trouble to Mr X and significant distress to Mr Y. The Council has offered a payment of £300 to Mr X and £550 to Mr Y to acknowledge the injustice to them. This is a sufficient and proportionate remedy.
Statement Upheld Enforcement 28-Oct-2020
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate enforcement reports he made about a commercial site to the rear of his home. We found there was fault by the Council. The Council agreed to make a payment to Mr X to reflect the additional time Mr X had to spend chasing the complaints. The Council also agreed to review an issue with its records and take a prompt decision on a retrospective planning application. This would enable it to decide upon any relevant enforcement action needed for the site in question.