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:

  • East Suffolk Council (21 008 294)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 04-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr E complained how the Council handled a breach of planning control when his neighbour erected a fence near to where he lives. We find the Council was at fault for failing to properly understand the condition in the original plans did not explicitly remove permitted development rights. The Council apologised to Mr E for the inconvenience and distress caused. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

  • Bristol City Council (21 010 212)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 31-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against her neighbours, when they built an extension to a greater height than permission allowed for. We have discontinued our investigation. The planning enforcement case is still active so it is not possible for us to determine the level of injustice the alleged fault may have caused Ms X.

  • Brentwood Borough Council (21 009 135)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 31-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure a developer installed a privacy screen in line with the planning conditions or approved drawings. Mr X says the resultant privacy screen does not provide him with the intended privacy. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council failing to include the relevant drawings in the decision notice preventing effective enforcement. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendation to apologise to Mr X and pay him £1,000 for the impact on his amenity.

  • Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (21 001 670)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X says the Council failed to act on his reports that his neighbour carried out development on a front driveway without planning permission. Mr X also complains the Council unreasonably decided to apply its policy on vexatious or persistent complainants to him. There was fault by the Council because it did not inform Mr X of the outcome of its planning enforcement investigation. It consequently improperly applied its policy on vexatious complainants. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him to address the injustice he suffered in consequence of its fault.

  • Cheshire East Council (21 009 784)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains about inaction by the Council on a planning enforcement complaint. There was fault with the Council's handling of the planning enforcement matter as well as its handling of Mr X's complaint. However, the complainant was closed because the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

  • West Berkshire Council (20 004 358)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr B complains that the Council failed to take appropriate action in respect of breaches of planning control relating to a nearby mobile home site. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council has decided to take no further action, so we cannot question the merits of that decision.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 014 193)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 28-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr C complains about the Council's response to his reports of breaches of planning control which he says allowed a harmful impact on his family's residential amenity and led to him spending unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter. We have found fault by the Council in the time taken to address Mr C's reports and poor communication but consider the agreed action of an apology, £750 and timely enforcement action going forward provides a suitable remedy.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 337)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 28-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs D complains about planning advice provided by the Council. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

  • Buckinghamshire Council (21 013 691)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 28-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's failure to enforce a condition of a planning permission granted by the Planning Inspectorate. There was fault by the Council because of unreasonable delay in dealing with the matter. The Council agreed to act to remedy the injustice.

  • Cheshire East Council (21 008 633)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 27-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed taking enforcement action against a developer who had breached planning conditions. We have discontinued our investigation as the Council's enforcement investigation remains open. It is not possible for us to reach a decision on the alleged injustice caused by the Council's actions until the enforcement investigation has concluded.