Enforcement


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Aylesbury Vale District Council (18 019 340)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 15-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint, about a number of planning matters, as it is made late. The Ombudsman will also not investigate the Council's handling of a complaint as an independent matter.

  • Selby District Council (18 014 504)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 12-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Council correctly investigated concerns about a neighbour operating a business at home, and causing noise nuisance to Mr B. However, the Council failed to respond to some of Mr B's correspondence which caused annoyance, the Council will apologise.

  • East Lindsey District Council (18 014 888)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 12-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Council was at fault in how it dealt with unauthorised development that reduced Mr X's privacy. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 in recognition of the distress caused by its avoidable delay. The Council also agreed to review its enforcement decision and write to update Mr X on its findings.

  • Reading Borough Council (18 015 879)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 11-Jul-2019

    Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's refusal to take planning enforcement action. She says she continues to suffer loss of light and loss of property value as a result. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault in the Council's decision making process.

  • Poole Borough Council (18 014 087)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 10-Jul-2019

    Summary: There has been delay in the Council's consideration of two applications for retrospective planning consent on land within a garden centre site since April and June 2018. However, this delay does not amount to fault. The Ombudsman will not pursue other parts of the complaint that relate to applications on the site submitted in 2014 and 2015.

  • Poole Borough Council (18 004 107)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 10-Jul-2019

    Summary: There has been delay in the Council's consideration of two applications for retrospective planning consent for two businesses on land at a garden centre since April and June 2018. However, this delay does not amount to fault.

  • Horsham District Council (18 014 046)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 08-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to consult him on a planning application and its failure to take enforcement action. Mr X says that because of this, the way the land next to him is used causes disturbance to him. There was some fault in the way the Council made its decisions, but it did not cause a significant injustice to Mr X.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (18 016 840)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 02-Jul-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to control light pollution from a development on her property causing harm to her amenity. The Council failed to properly discharge planning conditions concerning lighting at the development. That did not cause Ms X injustice as the Council assessed the impact of the lighting did not unduly affect her amenity, and did not cause her a statutory nuisance.

  • London Borough of Barnet (18 015 205)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 01-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council has failed to take enforcement action against several breaches of planning control committed by their next-door neighbour. They also complain it took too long to deal with their correspondence about this matter, if it did at all, and the Council's Planning Enforcement Team should not have been involved in the investigation of their formal complaint. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not maintaining detailed records of its investigation and for failing to deal with all of Mr and Mrs B's concerns in a timely manner. It was also at fault for the way it handled their complaint about these matters. The main injustice caused by these faults has already been rectified, however we recommend the Council apologises to Mr and Mrs B to acknowledge the impact of its faults. We also recommend the learning points from this complaint are discussed at a Planning Enforcement Team meeting to prevent these faults from reoccurring. The Council has agreed to carry out these recommendations.

  • Manchester City Council (18 008 884)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 28-Jun-2019

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered taking enforcement action against a bar below Mr B's property. There was fault in the Council's communication about the enforcement with Mr B and Mr C, but the Council has already apologised for this.