Enforcement


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Runnymede Borough Council (18 014 042)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 14-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council granted a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development and handled enforcement issues in relation to land partly used for commercial business close to his home. An appeal on an application for the site is with the Planning Inspectorate, so we should not investigate further at this time.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 003 119)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 13-May-2019

    Summary: The complainant says the Council is at fault in its handling of her reports of breaches of planning control and noise nuisance from a business near her home. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council and therefore he has ended his consideration of this complaint.

  • Broads Authority (18 014 752)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 10-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Authority failed to consider ground levels and the raising of land when considering a planning application. The Authority knew the applicant would raise the ground levels but did not specify by how much and did not consider the impact of the raised levels when determining the application. While this is fault, the result, on balance, would have been the same and the Authority would have granted permission.

  • Stafford Borough Council (18 007 755)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 09-May-2019

    Summary: The Council acted without fault in its handling of complaints about alleged breaches of planning control on a major development site from September 2017.

  • Rossendale Borough Council (18 008 402)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 07-May-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to keep planning control over a development, which permanently adversely affected the complainant's enjoyment of his home. The Council has agreed a payment to correct the injustice caused to the complainant. The Council reached a decision not to take enforcement action through due process and had no duty to inspect the development afterwards, as it had not been the inspector for Building Regulations.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (18 002 156)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 07-May-2019

    Summary: Miss B complains about how the Council dealt with enforcement issues associated with development near to her home, and about how the Council dealt with her complaint about that. The Ombudsman finds that apart from minor faults identified by the Council during its own complaint investigation, there was no other fault and Miss B and her neighbours were not caused significant injustice.

  • West Berkshire Council (18 012 151)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 03-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of planning and building control on a neighbour's extension, resulting in damage to his property and frustration. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint about building control because it has already issued a decision on this. The Ombudsman finds no fault in how the Council decided on the planning application. The Ombudsman finds the Council delayed in dealing with a planning enforcement complaint and recommends an apology and action to remedy this.

  • Tendring District Council (18 008 256)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 29-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains of fault with the Council's decision not to take enforcement action against unauthorised development at a neighbouring property as well as its handling of enforcement matters at that property. There was fault by the Council because the planning enforcement officer acted partially towards the owner of the neighbouring property. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

  • Tendring District Council (18 014 983)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 29-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains of fault with the Council's decision not to take enforcement action against unauthorised development at a neighbouring property as well as its handling of enforcement matters at that property. There was fault by the Council because the planning enforcement officer acted partially towards the owner of the neighbouring property. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

  • London Borough of Camden (18 010 568)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 26-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve a fast food restaurant and take-away near his home. Mr X says the new restaurant will affect his amenities. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.