Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Ashfield District Council (20 002 206)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 14-Dec-2021

    Summary: We intend to stop investigating Mr X's complaint about how the Council handled a planning enforcement investigation about his neighbour's farm building. This is because part of the complaint is late and further investigation is unlikely to achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

  • Herefordshire Council (21 004 539)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 13-Dec-2021

    Summary: There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council that has caused significant injustice to warrant investigation of this complaint. The breach of planning condition complained about is now resolved and the injustice caused from increased traffic movements on several days over 2 years is not sufficient to warrant a remedy.

  • Rother District Council (20 014 240)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 13-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to his correspondence or take appropriate and timely enforcement action in relation to a breach of planning control at a neighbouring property. The Council's failure to deal with this matter in a proactive manner and the repeated delays and periods of significant drift amount to fault. As do the Council's failure to respond to Mr X's emails, keep him updated and the delays in dealing with his complaints. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice.

  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 923)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 10-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to protect his amenity from a business that has changed the use of land without planning permission. We ended our investigation as the enforcement action is ongoing and there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has acted so far.

  • Winchester City Council (21 003 401)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 10-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her neighbour's planning application. We ended our investigation as it is unlikely to result in a finding of fault or a significant injustice to Mrs X.

  • West Lindsey District Council (21 001 434)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 06-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council unnecessarily delayed in taking planning enforcement action against her neighbour. She also complained about how it updated her on its progress. The Council was at fault for allowing the case to drift for a short period of time. The Council will apologise to Mrs X. It has taken suitable action to prevent the fault occurring again.

  • East Hertfordshire District Council (20 013 791)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 30-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to take planning enforcement action against his neighbour, who installed noise generating equipment near the shared boundary. There was fault in the way the Council acted, as it did not make its planning enforcement decision within a reasonable time. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X by apologising for what has happened and to make its decision without further delay.

  • Northumberland County Council (21 001 763)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 29-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council lost planning documents for a site near to his home. As a result the Council could not take planning enforcement action when development was carried out on the site. The works meant there were numerous heavy vehicles using the road which serves Mr B's property. The road was damaged and has only been partly repaired. There was fault but it did not cause injustice to Mr B.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 014 449)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 29-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his complaints of breaches of planning enforcement. There was no fault in the enforcement process. However, the Council was at fault when it failed to keep Mr X updated about his complaints.

  • Leicester City Council (20 014 295)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 29-Nov-2021

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision that a material change of use had occurred at a property and it could not enforce the conditions of its existing planning permission.