Summary: Mr X and others complained the Council failed to properly investigate breaches of planning rules near their homes. There was fault, including delays and poor communication, with how the Council carried out its planning enforcement investigation from early 2023. This caused avoidable frustration, inconvenient and distress to Mr X and other nearby residents. The Council agreed to apologise to those affected, update them on the recent action it has taken and make a plan for future updates. It also agreed to issue reminders to its staff and develop a plan to address its backlog of investigations.

The complaint

1. Mr X and several of his neighbours complain about how the Council responded to reports of breaches of unauthorised development, and change of use, of land near their home over the last several years. They say the Council:
• took too long to investigate their reports;
• failed to take action to prevent the unauthorised development;
• communicated with them poorly; and
• failed to respond to their complaint.
2. As a result, they say they have had to live next to unattractive and disruptive development, and they have been caused uncertainty and worry. They want the Council to properly respond to their complaint, review the action it has taken and decide what enforcement action it should now take. They also want the Council to improve how it handles planning enforcement and complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
7. 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

8. I have not investigated the Council’s actions before March 2023. This is because the complaint about events before October 2023 is late. While I am satisfied there are good reasons to investigate events from March 2023 onwards, I do not consider there are good reasons to look back further than this.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by the Complainants and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. The Complainants 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

Planning enforcement

11. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached, including where there has been development without the right permissions. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
12. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. 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 development or use.
13. 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.
14. 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)

Background

15. Several years ago, a new owner purchased land near the Complainants’ homes.
16. Shortly after the purchase, the Complainants began reporting to the Council that the new owner had made changes to the land and started development without permission. The Council opened an investigation into these initial reports, but there was no outcome to that investigation.
17. After further reports and persistence by the Complainants, the Council started a further planning enforcement investigation. However, after several months of contact with the site owner and further reports of unauthorised development from the Complainants, there was then no further activity until the Spring of 2023.

Events from 2023

18. The Complainants raised further concerns with the Council in the Spring of 2023, after further development of the site and no updates from the Council.
19. The Council further engaged with the owner of the land and conducted more site visits over several months. There was then a further break in action by the Council for several months until the end of 2023 when the Complainants made a formal complaint to the Council, with the help of a planning adviser.
20. The planning adviser sent the Council a detailed complaint setting out what they believed to be the unauthorised development and the Council’s lack of progress investigating and addressing this.
21. The Council responded to the complaint in early 2024. In its response it accepted there had been little progress in its investigations, and it had failed to keep the Complainants informed. It said it would review the enforcement action and inform the Complainants of the action it proposed to take.
22. Around a month later, the Complainants’ planning adviser asked the Council to consider their complaint further, as they had not received the promised update on the Council’s plans.
23. The planning adviser chased a response from the Council several months later. However, the Council did not reply until mid-2024 when it told the planning adviser it could not give a timeline for further action.
24. When there was no further apparent action taken by the Council by late 2024, the Complainants brought their complaint to the Ombudsman.
25. During our investigation, the Council decided it should take enforcement action, and issued an enforcement notice requiring the landowner to return the land to its original condition.

My findings

26. The Complainants brought their complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2024, so their complaint about events before October 2023 are late. We can only consider late complaints if we decide there are good reasons. In this case, there were delays in the Council responding to the request for a stage two complaint. It also failed, in its stage two response, to inform the Complainants they could complain to the Ombudsman. I consider that delay and failure to be good reasons to consider the Council’s actions from early 2023 onwards.
27. The evidence shows the Council failed to properly progress or manage its enforcement investigation throughout 2023 and 2024. For example, despite making contact with the landowner and undertaking some site visits, the Council set no timescales for action or follow-up, and failed to make clear decisions about what action it could and should take. That was fault. The Council has provided no good explanations for most of those delays.
28. Although the case had been open for several years the Council only properly considered whether it should take formal enforcement action in March 2025. While this was after our investigation started, the Council says this was a coincidence.
29. In its decision, the Council decided the unauthorised development likely affected the residential amenity of nearby households, including the Complainants. Had the Council had carried out its investigations without delays, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, it would likely have taken that action sooner and the impact on the Complainants could have likely been resolved sooner.
30. The delays also caused the Complainants avoidable frustration and inconvenience in chasing the Council for updates over a prolonged period of time.
31. There was also fault in how the Council failed to respond to the stage two complaint in line with its complaints process. The Council did not address the Complainants’ outstanding concerns, provide them with a meaningful update, inform the Complainants they could complain to the Ombudsman or respond within the correct timescale. That was fault which added to the Complainants’ frustration and also caused them further time trouble, and costs of their planning adviser chasing the Council.
32. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it has a significant number of outstanding planning enforcement investigations which have been open for more than 12 months. Although the Council says this backlog started with the COVID-19 pandemic and it has already taken some action to try to address this, it should develop an action plan to address the large number of long outstanding investigations.

Back to top

Action

33. We have the power to make recommendations to remedy the injustice experienced by complainants and members of the public affected by fault we identify. (Local Government Act 1974 s 31(2B)). I have set out below the actions the Council should take to remedy the injustice to Complainant and those people who are also caused an injustice by the Council’s fault.
34. Within one month of my final decision the Council should:
• apologise to the people listed in the December 2023 complaint to the Council, for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the delays in investigating the unauthorised developments near their home;
• send a written update to the same people on the recent enforcement action it has taken;
• develop a written plan for how and when it will keep the same people informed about further steps it takes, until the enforcement investigation is closed; and
• reimburse the Complainants for the costs they paid to their planning adviser for pursuing and chasing the stage two complaint in 2024.
35. Within six months of my final decision the Council should:
• provide a suitable briefing or training to its planning staff on the Council’s complaints process, including how complaints should be recorded and responded to, and the relevant timescales; and
• develop a written action plan, with measurable outcomes and timescales, to address its backlog of planning enforcement complaints.
36. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice. I have proposed actions to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman