Stroud District Council (21 018 531)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 31-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complaint is late.

East Lindsey District Council (19 014 585)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 30-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow procedure when its planning enforcement officers investigated his conversion of a garage to letting rooms. I do not consider there is fault causing injustice to Mr X by the Council.

Hambleton District Council (21 018 842)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 30-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Planning Inspector.

London Borough of Southwark (21 009 521)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 30-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for an extension to a flat below the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to suggest fault has affected the planning application outcome, the Council has offered a satisfactory remedy for its delays in responding to the complaint correspondence, and we cannot consider any parts of the complaint about the Council’s actions as freeholder of the building.

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.

Somerset West and Taunton Council (21 002 823)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2022

Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for floodlighting to a tennis court and will suffer from excessive levels of light intrusion and glare. We have found fault by the Council in its decision making process but consider the agreed action of an apology, £250 and an assessment of the impact of the floodlighting with any necessary mitigation is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Birmingham City Council (21 018 921)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 29-Mar-2022

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about a planning enforcement notice. This is because Mr B used his right of appeal to the planning inspector.

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.

Ashford Borough Council (21 006 187)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to take appropriate enforcement action regarding a breach of planning control by his neighbour. We found there was no fault, and this was a decision the Council were entitled to make.

Somerset West and Taunton Council (21 010 626)

Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for floodlighting to a tennis court and will suffer from excessive levels of light intrusion and glare. We have found fault by the Council in its decision making process but consider the agreed action of an apology, £250 and an assessment of the impact of the floodlighting with any necessary mitigation is enough to provide a suitable remedy.