Enforcement


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (18 012 975)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 17-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr B has complained about a series of alleged breaches of planning control by his next-door neighbour and a neighbour to the rear of his property. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way that the Council has undertaken the enforcement investigations it has completed. The investigation into the recently built outbuilding remains ongoing, so there is not yet a decision for the Ombudsman to consider.

  • Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (18 000 410)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 14-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against a neighbouring business operator. Mr X believes the Council's failure to act is allowing his neighbour unfair competitive advantages. There was no fault in the process by which the Council made its decisions.

  • Eastleigh Borough Council (18 016 031)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 12-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains that the Council failed to take enforcement action after a developer failed to meet conditions of a planning application. I have completed my investigation on the basis that there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter.

  • Shropshire Council (18 004 403)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 11-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's failure to take action in response to unauthorised works to remove trees and create an access road in a woodland near to his home. He says the loss of habitat has had an adverse impact on the ecology of the area and the amenity of his home. There was fault in the Council's handling of Mr B's complaint. There was no fault in the Council's planning enforcement investigation.

  • Torridge District Council (18 009 980)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 05-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to properly investigate Mr B's complaints about breaches of planning control. It delayed responding to some of Mr B's concerns, it failed to respond to his formal complaint and there were failings in the way it decided to close the case. The Council has agreed to apologise and explain to Mr B why it is not currently taking enforcement action. It will also make a payment to Mr B and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

  • Broxbourne Borough Council (18 013 818)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 31-May-2019

    Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council's decision not to enforce against breaches of planning control at a development site close to his home. The Ombudsman does not uphold this part of the complaint because the Council was entitled to resolve the breaches informally. Mr Y also complains about the Council's decision to grant permission for noisy works under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act. The Ombudsman finds fault because the Council approved the application without visiting the site and noting errors in the measurements. This meant the developer was not required to install additional acoustic barriers, and so Mr Y suffered more disturbance than necessary for eight nights in total. The Council will apologise and pay £150 to Mr Y.

  • Purbeck District Council (18 000 020)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 30-May-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B have complained that the Council has failed to take appropriate action to deal with noise and other nuisance from events at a nearby farm. The Ombudsman has found no significant fault in the way the Council responded to Mr and Mrs B's concerns.

  • Thanet District Council (18 013 535)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 29-May-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mr Z's complaint about its handling of a neighbour's planning applications. The Council met its legal responsibilities by publicising them and bringing them to Mr Z's attention. It properly considered their impact on his amenities. While it failed to promptly respond to one of his letters, it apologised for the delay. I consider the failure too minor to justify a fault finding.

  • East Lindsey District Council (18 006 739)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 29-May-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council failed to take enforcement action when their neighbour stored two shipping containers and a large quantity of used tyres on a paddock adjoining their home. There was fault by the Council because it did not investigate the use of the containers but relied on this in its decision not to take action, and it failed to explain how the tyres could constitute a wall and so be permitted development. The Council's shortcomings caused Mr and Mrs B frustration and meant they had to complain to the Ombudsman. The Council has agreed to investigate these issues again, apologise to Mr and Mrs B and pay them £150 in recognition of the impact on them.

  • South Somerset District Council (18 016 781)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 28-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to add a condition about the use of materials to a neighbour's planning permission. As a result of this fault, the neighbour has used plastic cladding when the Council intended natural timbers to be used. The use of this material has impacted on Mr X's visual amenity. An appropriate remedy is proposed.