Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not take action against a neighbouring landowner who breached planning permission. We find no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Ms X) complains the Council failed to deal appropriately with complaints about planning breaches by a neighbour. Ms X believes there have been numerous opportunities to resolve these issues, but there has been a failure by the Council to do so. The Council says each breach is too minor to enforce. But the cumulative effect of repeated breaches with no action calls into question the effectiveness of the planning process.
2. Ms X says the key injustice to her is that at times it has not been possible to use the public highway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Planning enforcement

7. 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.
8. 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.” (National Planning Policy Framework September 2023, paragraph 60)
9. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
10. Councils have a range of options for formal planning enforcement action, including:

• Planning Contravention Notices – to require information from the owner or occupier of land and provide an opportunity to rectify the alleged breach.
• Planning Enforcement Notices – where there is evidence of a breach, to identify it and require action to remedy it.
• Stop Notices - to prohibit activities without further delay where it is essential to safeguard the public.
• Breach of Condition Notices – to require compliance with the terms of planning conditions already decided necessary for approval of the development.
• Injunctions – by application to the High Court or County Court, the Council may seek an order to restrain an actual or expected breach of planning control.

The Council’s Planning Enforcement Policy

11. The Council’s Planning Enforcement Policy says the following.
• The Council would always seek to resolve breaches of planning control by negotiation. It would only use formal enforcement action where negotiation has failed, as a last resort.
• Where the complaint is from a third party it would acknowledge receipt of a complaint within five working days of receipt, investigate the complaint within 21 days and inform the complainant of the outcome of the investigation within 28 days.
• It would make any decision on whether it was expedient to pursue further action following a formal assessment of the breach.
• Following the serving of a Notice, it would visit a sited regularly to monitor compliance.

What happened

12. In early 2024 Ms X first complained to the Council about work from a neighbouring business property. Around a month later the Council served a Temporary Stop Notice on the landowner.
13. In the spring the Council issued a Planning Enforcement Notice against work undertaken on the land without the planning permission.
14. In early summer Ms X reported further activity on the site and asked the Council to investigate. The Council’s enforcement officer visited the site and responded to Ms X. He advised the works would have normally required planning permission. But his view was the land had been adequately restored. So it was not expedient for the Council to take enforcement action. The officer noted other potential breaches and he would discuss options with the Council’s solicitor.
15. The Council’s planning enforcement officer contacted the landowner about various works the Council was investigating. He noted the Council was proposing to service a Planning Enforcement Notice regarding restoration of the site. The officer also gave advice about what might be permitted development and what might need planning permission.
16. In early autumn the Council issued the Planning Enforcement Notice.
17. Ms X complained about the state of the road near her home, which she said had deteriorated since the landowner’s business use - meaning heavy goods vehicles were now using the road.
18. The Council’s complaint response did not resolve Ms X’s concerns, so she complained to the Ombudsman. We made enquiries of the Council. Its response to my enquiries included records showing it had:
• issued a new Planning Enforcement Notice;
• been in communication with the landowner and his representative, including about work that might be causing damage to the public highway;
• communicated with Ms X.

Analysis

19. Ms X is concerned her neighbour took actions that needed planning permission. These impacted on Ms X – she says mainly in the damage to the public highway. However, the Ombudsman’s task is to ensure that the Council responded properly to reports of these breaches.
20. Although the breaches did recur, there was no fault by the Council in how it dealt with them. Its files show that it responded quickly to reports, visiting the site and issuing Planning Enforcement Notices. I can see it has kept in touch with the landowner advising of its concerns and monitoring his activity. It kept in touch with Ms X.
21. It is for the Council to decide whether it should take further formal enforcement action or require the developer to submit applications to regularise breaches. I see no fault in its investigation. It followed both national guidance and its own Planning Enforcement Policy. So it is not for the Ombudsman to criticise the merits of the Council’s decisions.

Back to top

Final Decision

22. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman