Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to investigate his report of unauthorised development that overlooked and reduced privacy to his home. We found no evidence of fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to investigate his report of unauthorised development that overlooked and reduced privacy to his home. Mr X wanted the Council to secure the removal of the unauthorised development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mr X first contacted the Council in 2022 about the unauthorised development near his home. Then, in Spring 2024, Mr X again contacted the Council about the same development. I did not exercise discretion to investigate back to 2022 as too much time had passed since then and Mr X’s complaint to us in Summer 2024. We generally expect people to complain promptly about something their council has or has not done and to bring that complaint, if not resolved by the council, to us within 12 months. Here, there was no evidence Mr X chased the Council for a response between his contacts in 2022 and 2024. And I found no grounds or good reason to justify an investigation into what happened between 2022 and Spring 2024. However, Mr X’s concerns about the unauthorised development were continuing in 2024 and the Council had yet to reach an enforcement decision on the case. My investigation therefore concerned events since Spring 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance. I offered to discuss the complaint with Mr X and later shared Council information with him. I also gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Councils have legal powers to take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. Government guidance says, as enforcement action is discretionary, councils should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches. (National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 60)
8. As planning enforcement is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements or asking for a planning application so the council can formally consider the planning issues.
9. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the unauthorised development or use.
10. The Council has a 2023 Planning Enforcement Policy Document (the Policy). The Policy reflects the NPPF guidance and says the Council will normally first try to resolve a breach through negotiation.
11. The Policy says the Council will assess breaches as Levels A (high priority), B (secondary priority), C (low priority) and D (not expedient). Level A cases concern breaches causing unacceptable harm that merit protection in the public interest. The Policy says the Council aims to contact the person reporting the breach and tell them of the case priority within 10 working days. For low priority level C cases the Council aims to set a course of action for its enforcement investigation within 15 working days. The investigation may include a site visit to help the Council decide if it would be expedient to take enforcement action. The Policy says the Council aims to complete 70% of Level C case investigations within 9 months. The Policy also refers people to the Council’s complaints procedure if they are unhappy with its handling of their enforcement case.

What happened

12. In late Spring 2024, Mr X contacted the Council about development near his home. About two weeks later, the Council wrote to Mr X saying it had registered his report of a breach of planning control and given it Level C (low) priority. The Council said it would write to the landowner about the alleged breach and give them an opportunity to respond before starting an investigation. The Council also said it was prioritising cases due to high demands on its service and limited resources. So, currently it actively investigated Level A and B cases. The Council told Mr X it could not provide updates or a timescale for its investigation but would contact him on completion of the investigation.
13. The Council also wrote to the owner of the nearby land. The Council said it had opened an enforcement investigation following a report of development taking place without planning permission. The Council also asked the owner to provide information about the development.
14. Mr X complained to the Council and asked it to deal with his case. The Council did not uphold the complaint. It said enforcement investigations could take a long time. And its limited resources meant cases were prioritised although it always contacted the owner alleged to be breaching planning control. The Council said the law gave it significant time to act and it sought to progress Level C cases as quickly as possible. So, eventually, it should take any necessary and proportionate enforcement action on Level C cases.
15. Mr X replied asking the Council to give his case higher priority. The Council did not uphold the complaint. The Council repeated its earlier comments about priorities and resources. It also said there was no evidence the case was not correctly registered as Level C and confirmed it had written to the landowner about the reported breach. The Council said there were two likely possibilities for the breach. It explained which appeared most likely and why that would mean it could not take enforcement action. The Council signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.
16. About 9 months after the Council registered Mr X’s report of a breach, it again wrote to him. The Council thanked Mr X for his patience and said it had now investigated his case. The Council told Mr X what it had found and said it would close its investigation as the development did not need planning permission. Meanwhile, Mr X had complained to the Ombudsman.

What the Council told the Ombudsman

17. The Council recognised there had been delay in investigating Mr X’s case but it had now been closed after it found no breach of planning control. It had therefore dealt with Mr X’s case in line with its procedures.
18. The Council recognised it had a backlog of enforcement cases, which was mainly caused by staffing constraints. Reported breaches had also increased during COVID-19 when site visits were restricted. The Council said its staffing challenges reflected a wider problem facing many councils in recruiting and retaining enforcement officers. It had acted to recruit, train (which also took staff time), and retain officers, which had been partially successful. It also used agency staff, although this added significantly to costs. At a strategic level, in 2024 it restructured services to strengthen multi-disciplinary working. This helped with information sharing and more effective investigations, particularly in complex cases. Enforcement officers now had more support with investigations and weekly meetings ensured cases were reviewed and managers provided any necessary further support.
19. The Council also said it was reviewing the Policy to reflect recent changes in planning enforcement law and to include its investigation priorities. Meanwhile, it continued to tell those reporting a breach about its approach to Level C cases. These actions ensured it was open about its approach to planning enforcement and residents knew how it would handle their case.

Consideration

20. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the procedures a council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those procedures correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of how strongly a complainant may disagree with the decision.
21. Here, the development described and reported by Mr X was like an example given in the Policy for a typical Level C case. I therefore found no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to classify Mr X’s case as a Level C priority.
22. The evidence also showed the Council wrote to Mr X within 10 working days of registering his case and giving it Level C priority. The Council said that ‘action plans’ under the Policy needed contact with the owner allegedly breaching planning control. Here, the evidence showed the Council wrote to the owner within 15 working days of registering Mr X’s case. And, while telling Mr X that currently it did not actively investigate Level C cases, it completed its investigation into Mr X’s case. The Council also wrote to Mr X to tell him of that decision, which was in line with the information it gave him on registering his case. The Council’s decision was also made within 9 months of it registering Mr X’s case. The evidence therefore showed the Council acted in line with relevant timescales set out in the Policy and the information it gave Mr X on registering his case.
23. I appreciate Mr X may have wanted a faster investigation, and a different decision, but I found no evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s case. I therefore could not question the Council’s decision to close the case finding no breach of planning control.
24. I also recognised the Council’s continuing actions to address its backlog and improve its planning enforcement service for residents.

Back to top

Decision

25. I found no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman