Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action in respect of unauthorised development at a neighbouring property. Mr X says the structure is visually intrusive and any ongoing use has the potential to cause disturbance. As a retrospective planning application for the retention of the unauthorised structure is pending determination, it would not be a good use of public money to investigate this matter further at this time.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action in respect of unauthorised development at a neighbouring property.
2. Mr X says the unauthorised structure is visually intrusive and any ongoing use has the potential to cause disturbance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Changes to planning laws allowed landowners to operate a campsite for 56 days during 2021 without the need for planning permission. Mr X’s neighbour intended to make use of this change and in December 2020 moved a shipping container onto his land and began converting it into a toilet/shower block.
7. Mr X contacted the Council expressing his concerns about the impact this development would have. Mr X believes the 56 days begin from the time any action takes place on the land in respect of the intended use as a campsite. Mr X therefore was of the view the shipping container should be removed from the land as it had been there for more than 56 days.
8. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council on 25 June 2021 about its lack of enforcement action in respect of the neighbouring site. Mr X said a tent had been erected on the site earlier in the year and so the permitted 56 days had been used up and the Council should serve an enforcement notice. Mr X also informed the Council his neighbour was advertising a glamping site online and would be taking bookings from 16 July.
9. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 8 July. It explained that investigating reported breaches of planning control took time in order for the issues to be thoroughly investigated. It said that it then needs to consider whether enforcement action is appropriate. It provided Mr X a link to its enforcement policy.
10. The Council explained to Mr X that it had visited the site in April 2021 and took the view that the shipping container did not require planning permission. It explained that it had been informed that week that further changes had been made to the container and so it would need to investigate further and that it would update him.
11. The Council said it had been informed that a tent had been erected for the landowner’s personal use and it had not evidence the land had been used as a commercial campsite to date. The Council said that the landowners therefore still had 56 days of commercial use.
12. Mr X contacted the Council again on 9 July. He said it was his understanding that once a tent was erected the 56 day clock began and it would not matter if it had been erected for personal use. He said the fact it was on the site was enough to start the permitted development period. Mr X said the 56 day allowance will have expired before 16 July and that therefore the Council should serve an enforcement notice and order the removal of the container from the site.
13. Mr X continued to correspond with the Council. A meeting was held between Mr X and a planning officer in which they discussed the differences of opinion regarding the container and the camping operation. Following the meeting Mr X wrote to the Council on 22 July seeking clarification on when the 56 day permitted period starts. Mr X again explained that his view was the time started the moment any structure is put in place to service the camping enterprise and not when tents are erected.
14. The Council replied on 26 July saying the 56 day period begins when the land is brough into use as a camping site. It said the neighbouring land had only just been brough into use as a camping site and so the container had only now come into use as an ancillary facility for the campsite.
15. Mr X emailed the Council again on 30 July including some extracts of planning legislation. He again stated his view that the siting of the shipping container for use as washroom facilities counts towards the 56 day temporary use allowance. He requested the Council to take enforcement action for the removal of the structure as it has no planning permission and has been in position for more than 56 days.
16. The Council’s response dated 9 August said that it agreed with Mr X that the right to use the land as a camping site includes the use of associated facilities and so would include the container. It said therefore the use of the land and associated moveable structures are lawful for a period of 56 days after which time they would not benefit from permitted development rights.
17. Mr X made further contact with the Council about the situation and asking it to take enforcement action. The Council did not provide any further explanation of why it was not taking enforcement action in this case.
18. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman on 2 September 2021. On 12 November 2021 the Council validated a planning application from Mr X’s neighbour. This retrospective planning application has not yet been determined. Mr X is aware and has submitted his objections as part of the planning application process.

Analysis

19. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.”
20. Mr X complains the Council has not taken enforcement action in respect of the shipping container. The container has been on the site since December 2020 and Mr X believes it was only permitted to be there for 56 days because of its use as part of the camping operations.
21. While it is not the Ombudsman’s role to take a view on whether there has been a breach of planning control, we can investigate the administrative process followed by a council in respect of an enforcement investigation. I have considered whether it is appropriate to now investigate the planning enforcement process when a retrospective planning application for the permanent siting of the container and use of the land as a campsite, is pending.
22. Mr X has the opportunity to raise his objections as part of the planning application process and I understand he has now done this. If the application is approved, any breach of planning control in respect of the container will be rectified. If the application is refused, then the Council will need to consider whether it is expedient to take enforcement action if the container is not removed from the site.
23. I am satisfied the Council did take action in 2021 in respect of the container and Mr X’s complaints. This included visiting the site and meeting with Mr X. While this did not result in the action Mr X required, it has resulted in the submission of a retrospective planning application. I am not persuaded it would be a good use of public money to now investigate the Council’s actions in respect of the container because the pending planning application is likely to provide a resolution. In reaching this view, I have considered the impact on Mr X of any breach of planning control and based on what he has told me, I am not persuaded the siting of the container without planning permission caused him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I will now discontinue my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman