Braintree District Council (24 011 123)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 18-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’ failure to take enforcement action over planning conditions and a planning agreement to provide a free shuttle bus service. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 014 274)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 18-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. This complaint is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been made sooner. Nor will we investigate a complaint about the Council’s decision-making relating to planning enforcement. It is unlikely we would find fault.

London Borough of Redbridge (24 016 842)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 18-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to Ms X’s neighbour’s boiler flue. This is because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council in relation to its more recent consideration of the issue.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 978)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 18-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the time taken by the Council to investigate a reported breach of planning control. And its decision that no breach has occurred. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Redcar & Cleveland Council (24 017 226)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 18-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not considering safety concerns related to telecommunications masts and its use of its vexatious complainant procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and significant injustice.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 017 789)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 18-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement issues related to works at the property next to the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Amber Valley Borough Council (24 019 949)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 18-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Westminster City Council (24 020 020)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Building control 18-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the wording on a building control notice. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 589)

Statement Upheld Enforcement 17-Mar-2025

Summary: X complained about the Council’s handling of development which had an unacceptable impact on their homes. We found no fault causing injustice in how the Council granted planning permission for the development. But we found avoidable delay by the Council in dealing with X’s reports of breaches of planning control on the development site. We also found avoidable delay in the Council’s handling of X’s complaint about the development. To put matters right, the Council agreed to apologise to X for the frustration caused by its avoidable delays and to reach a final decision on unresolved enforcement issues. The Council also agreed to make a symbolic payment of £250 to Mrs Z as representative for X, in recognition of her avoidable time and trouble caused by delays in its complaints handling.

Wealden District Council (24 008 716)

Statement Not upheld Planning applications 17-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of a local residents’ group that the Council did not have due regard to the Equality Act 2010 in its decisions to grant planning permission applications close to their homes. We find no fault with the Council’s decision-making.