Craven District Council (20 011 221)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 24-Mar-2022

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s planning decisions relating to development on her neighbour’s land. We ended our investigation because we are unlikely to find fault or achieve a meaningful outcome for Mrs X.

South Derbyshire District Council (21 010 440)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 23-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application and associated enforcement matters relating to a site next to 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 of fault by the Council directly causing the complainant a significant injustice.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 018 110)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 23-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we cannot yet determine if the complainant has suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

South Gloucestershire Council (21 004 659)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 23-Mar-2022

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not appropriately consider the impact of a neighbouring development on her residential amenity, before approving the application. As a result, there is an unacceptable loss of her privacy. The Council is at fault. It has agreed to approach Mrs X’s neighbour to offer to pay for the window to be obscure glazed. If the neighbour does not agree to this, it will pay Mrs X £3,000 to acknowledge the enduring impact and loss of privacy caused. It will also make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the distress caused and the time and trouble she has gone to pursuing her complaint.

Stroud District Council (21 000 264)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 23-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not taken enforcement action against a neighbouring development. He says the developer breached planning conditions and left spoil and shipping containers on site, which impacts on his enjoyment of the area. The Ombudsman finds fault in the delays and lack of communication in the Council’s enforcement investigation.

Waverley Borough Council (21 016 869)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 22-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s planning application. This is because Ms X had appeal rights to the Planning Inspector which we would reasonably have expected her to have used.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 017 065)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 22-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to notify Mr X directly, rather than his landlord, about planned demolition works close to his home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Birmingham City Council (21 018 210)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 22-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Canterbury City Council (21 012 062)

Statement Upheld Building control 22-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr X complains the Council completed a building control enforcement investigation into a neighbouring property without considering the evidence he had on the building works. There was fault by the Council because it did not consider information from Mr X. I recommend the Council reopens its enforcement investigation to take account of the information Mr X has.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 007 497)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 22-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions to issue a Certificate of Lawfulness of existing use of development and not to prosecute the applicant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.