Enforcement


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Slough Borough Council (18 013 864)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 16-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not take enforcement action against a noise nuisance, investigate her sighting of rats or follow its complaint procedure. Mrs B says she was constantly disturbed by noise. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council.

  • Bristol City Council (18 016 614)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 16-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs D complain the Council incorrectly decided not to take enforcement action for a planning breach by their neighbour in 2018. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

  • King's Lynn & West Norfolk Council (18 015 413)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 16-Apr-2019

    Summary: There is no evidence of injustice arising from the Council's handling of a planning enforcement matter. For this reason, the Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation.

  • Teignbridge District Council (18 012 018)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 15-Apr-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained, on behalf of the residents of 15 properties, the Council failed to enforce against breaches of planning control on a development near their homes. We have discontinued our investigation. The Council took enforcement action in considering a retrospective application from the developer. It is unlikely we would find evidence of significant injustice, caused by fault, to warrant further investigation.

  • Durham County Council (18 010 438)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 11-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not taken planning enforcement action against the change of use of a neighbouring property. He says noise from the property is disrupting his family's sleep. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council considered Mr B's initial complaint. However, he does find fault in how the Council investigated information it received later. The Council has is now remedying the injustice caused by carrying out further enquiries.

  • London Borough of Hackney (18 013 592)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 09-Apr-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's lack of effective action to address a breach of an enforcement notice against her neighbour, causing her to suffer loss of amenity. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council's decision making or actions.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (18 014 780)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 09-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr G complained about a remedy that the Council proposed, after it had failed to enforce a planning condition to erect a fence around his property. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was fault in the way the Council dealt with the remedy, as well as how they responded to his complaints. The Council has agreed to offer an alternative financial remedy to Mr F.

  • St Albans City Council (18 016 138)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 08-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to protect or enhance the character and appearance of a conservation area near his home. He says this happened because it failed to put in place an updated local development scheme or plan which led to the approval of a planning application for a residential dwelling in the area. He also complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action after the dwelling was built higher than the level shown on the approved plans. Moreover, he complains about the way the Council handled his complaint about these matters. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not ensuring it had sufficient information about the base height of the dwelling before it decided to grant planning permission. However, we have not found fault in relation to any other part of Mr X's complaint. The fault we identified did not cause him or his neighbours any significant injustice that requires remedial action. However, we have made a service improvement recommendation to the Council to prevent this fault from reoccurring, which it accepts.

  • St Albans City Council (18 008 237)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 08-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to protect or enhance the character and appearance of a conservation area near his home. He says this happened because it failed to put in place an updated local development scheme or plan which led to the approval of a planning application for a residential dwelling in the area. He also complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action after the dwelling was built higher than the level shown on the approved plans. Moreover, he complains about the way the Council handled his complaint about these matters. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not ensuring it had sufficient information about the base height of the dwelling before it decided to grant planning permission. However, we have not found fault in relation to any other part of Mr X's complaint. The fault we identified did not cause him or his neighbours any significant injustice that requires remedial action. However, we have made a service improvement recommendation to the Council to prevent this fault from reoccurring, which it accepts.

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 009 354)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 04-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's consideration of a planning application for a café and outdoor seating area next to his home. He also complains about the Council's consideration of noise from the use of the outdoor seating area. It was fault that the Council did not consider Mr B's correspondence over the summer of 2018 as complaints about noise and whether further action was necessary. There was delay in considering his complaint. The Council will apologise and, if Mr B complains further, consider if any further action is necessary.

;