Summary: Mr D complained the Council delayed progressing his report of a planning control breach. Based on current evidence I have found fault by the Council because it has failed to progress the case for over 12 months, this has left Mr D unsure about how his case has been handled or whether any action will be taken by the Council. The Council will now review Mr D’s case.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council has failed to investigate an alleged breach of planning control at a neighbouring property which he reported over 12 months ago. He says waiting to find out what action the Council will take has caused him undue stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. The first record I have of Mr D reporting the alleged planning control breach to the Council is on 17 January 2024. The Council state it set up a planning enforcement case the next day and sent a warning letter to the property owner. The Council says it did not receive a reply from the property owner.
7. Mr D formally complained to the Council about the lack of action on his case and the Council replied on 28 July. It said the case had been allocated to a Planning Officer who would shortly visit the site. It explained how cases were triaged and placed into a priority category. It also said that enforcement action was discretionary. Mr D pursued his complaint and received a further response on 6 August. The Council reiterated the information about prioritising cases. It did not explain if any additional action had been taken on Mr D’s case.
8. I made enquiries of the Council, and it provided a minimal response in March 2025. The Council said the case had recently been allocated priority level three. The Council also stated it would review the case “in the upcoming weeks”.

What should have happened

9. 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.” (National Planning Policy Framework July 2018, paragraph 58)

10. When the Council receives an online report of an alleged planning control breach it sends an auto-acknowledgement. It then triages the case “based on the information supplied and the level of planning harm”. The case will be ranked as priority one to three. Priority three is applied to cases without a wider impact including where the amenity of a single property is affected. The Council’s policy states that priority three cases “may take many months” before they are investigated.

Was there fault by the Council

11. There is fault by the Council. I understand Mr D’s case has been assessed and placed in the lowest priority band which means it will take “many months” to investigate. However, the very limited evidence I have been provided by the Council shows no useful action has happened in this case since January 2024 when an initial letter was sent to the property owner. The Council told Mr D in July that a visit would soon take place: that did not happen, and Mr D was not told any reason for the ongoing lack of action.

Did the fault cause an injustice

12. I cannot say what the outcome of the Council’s investigation into the alleged breach will find. However, it is clear that Mr D has had to wait an unreasonably long time for any useful progress on his case. Even after making a formal complaint his case has not moved forward. The Council should now apologise to Mr D and progress the case in a timely manner.

Back to top

Action

13. The Council has agreed to now review the case and give Mr D a timeframe for when he can expect a response. It will also apologise to him for the delay in progressing its investigation within four weeks of this investigation closing.
14. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

15. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman