Enforcement


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 000 788)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 24-Dec-2019

    Summary: Miss B complains that the Council was wrong to investigate her for alleged fly-tipping and a breach of covenant / planning control. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the Council investigating the alleged fly-tipping, though it should tell Miss B if it plans to take further action. The Council was wrong to investigate the construction of a boundary fence as a breach of covenant, because the Council was not a party to this agreement. It should make a payment for Miss B's associated legal costs and for her time and trouble and distress. However, if Miss B disagrees with the Council issuing a planning enforcement notice in respect of the fence, she can appeal to the Secretary of State.

  • Crawley Borough Council (19 003 735)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 19-Dec-2019

    Summary: Mr Y complains about the way the Council carried out enforcement action over a breach of planning control at a site near to his business. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so has completed his investigation.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (19 004 472)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 10-Dec-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action against a neighbour for using a property as a business. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision that a business operating from a residential property does not amount to a change of use. The Council is at fault as it delayed in investigating whether there was a material change of use but this did not cause significant injustice to Mrs X. The Council also delayed in responding to Mrs X's complaint at stage one of the complaints procedure. The Council apologised to Mrs X which is an appropriate remedy.

  • London Borough of Bexley (19 003 199)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 02-Dec-2019

    Summary: The Council took too long to decide a planning application. This meant that Mr B suffered a loss of privacy for longer than necessary from his neighbour's new extension. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and pay him £500 in recognition of the impact on him. There was no fault in how the Council decided the application or in the enforcement action it took when the neighbour breached the planning permission.

  • London Borough of Bromley (19 001 077)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 29-Nov-2019

    Summary: The Council is at fault in how it investigated Mr X's complaint about a breach of condition at a development site adjacent to his property. The Council's communication with Mr X was also poor. The faults by the Council caused frustration and put Mr X to avoidable time and trouble which the Council has agreed to remedy by making a payment of £150 to him.

  • South Gloucestershire Council (18 018 152)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 27-Nov-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr S's complaint of the Council failing to properly check the plans sent by a neighbour for an extension. The errors on the plans were not significant or obvious. There was no fault on his complaint about the Council deciding not to take enforcement action for 2 breaches. These were likely to get consent if approval was sought and the Council had discretion to make this decision.

  • Broxtowe Borough Council (19 006 034)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 25-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains of failure by the Council to take planning enforcement action after a developer raised the ground level at a property. However, Mr X does not live next door to the property, so there is no injustice to him.

  • Epping Forest District Council (18 017 534)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 20-Nov-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about a notice the Council posted on Mr B's land stating he did not have planning permission. This is because the Council has already put matters right as far as reasonably possible and the Ombudsman would be unlikely to recommend further action.

  • Craven District Council (18 019 423)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 19-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complains the Council wrongly did not impose a planning condition restricting the opening hours of a bar close to her home. Mrs B says this has removed a potential enforcement option if local residents are caused a noise nuisance. The Council was not at fault for the way it made this decision. This means we cannot say the decision was wrong. We have completed our investigation.

  • Cornwall Council (19 004 638)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 14-Nov-2019

    Summary: There was fault by the Council as its planning system did not correctly show that houses had permitted development rights removed. Officers remedied this fault and there was no fault in the enforcement officer's decision not to take action over unauthorised decking or removal of trees, other than to require replanting.