Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action over planning and licensing breaches from a neighbouring property. She said the breaches resulted in noise and anti-social behaviour, causing her distress. We found the Council took suitable steps to investigate Ms X’s complaints and was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action over planning and licensing breaches from a neighbouring property.
2. Ms X said the property owner rented out the property to large groups and as a wedding venue, without permission. She also said the owner did not maintain a public right of way running through their land.
3. Ms X suffered distress from noise nuisance, lack of sleep, and littering. Guests of the property have also trespassed on her land because the public right of way is not accessible.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. The issues Ms X complained about have been longstanding, lasting several years. I have investigated the Council’s actions since June 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
8. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
9. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning Use Classes

10. Planning uses of land or ‘use classes’ are set out in regulations. They cover a range of typical uses, like residential, business, industrial and commercial. Some uses do not fit within the use classes and planners refer to these as ‘sui generis’ which means ‘of its own kind’ or ‘unique’.
11. Planning permission is usually needed to change a use from one class to another. Whether a change of use has occurred is a matter of ‘fact and degree’ for the Council to decide.

Planning Enforcement

12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Councils have a range of options for formal planning enforcement action available to them, 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.

15. 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.
16. 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)

What happened

17. I have summarised below some key events leading to Ms X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
18. Ms X lives near neighbouring property with outbuildings used for holiday lets. There are three separate cottages which Ms X said are used for large group bookings, including ‘stag’ and ‘hen’ parties. Ms X said the business owner (the owner) did not have permission for this use.
19. There is also a large barn the owner should use for agricultural storage. Ms X said they also used the barn for large parties.
20. Ms X said guests make noise, including from loud music, shouting, and fireworks, and some guests have trespassed onto her land.
21. The Council wrote to Ms X in June 2023 confirming using dwellings for holiday let purposes was not a breach of planning control. It said the owner’s website did not previously dissuade parties, but the Council told them to include wording stating they are not allowed. The Council said it was still investigating the use of the large barn and would update Ms X soon.
22. The Parish Council also contacted the Council with concerns. The Council said it recently investigated and while unauthorised parties may have taken place, they are no longer allowed, and the owner changed their website to reflect this.
23. The Council said there was no material change of use between residential and holiday accommodation. It considers both are residential. However, stag and hen parties are an unacceptable change of use.
24. Ms X reported a large group of people on her land in August 2023. She said the owner is not meant to have large groups staying.
25. The Council contacted the owner, who gave details of the guests that stayed and confirmed it was not a large party.
26. The Council wrote to the owner in February 2024 about the large barn. It said the owner should use the barn for agricultural storage but used it for other purposes. It said this was considered a breach of planning and the owner needed planning permission to continue the unauthorised use. It asked the owner to make a planning application within 28 days if they wanted to continue the use.
27. In March 2024, Ms X reported loud music from the neighbouring property after 10pm. She recognised music can be played until 11pm but said there should be a sound limit.
28. The Council visited the site on 11 March and spoke to the owner. They denied allowing parties.
29. Ms X complained to the Council on 20 March 2024 about lack of action correcting planning breaches, and a lack of respect shown by officers.
30. The Council’s environmental health service sent a warning letter to the owner about noise nuisance on 26 March. It also sent diary sheets to Ms X, asking her to record further incidents.
31. Ms X recognised the noise did not happen every weekend. She said there had been three big parties so far that year and until recently the owner advertised their barn as 30-person accommodation.
32. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint on 23 April. It said its enforcement case remained open, and officers actively investigated her allegations. It confirmed using a dwelling for holiday purposes was not a breach of planning regulations. However, in some instances, such as use for stag or hen parties, the nature of use may change to the extent the owner needs planning permission.
33. The Council said it understood this had been the case when the owner let the property for larger groups. However, following Council intervention, the owner stopped advertising such activities.
34. The Council said officers made several unannounced visits but found no evidence of larger group stag or hen bookings. There is therefore no evidence a material change of use has occurred.
35. The Council said it continued to monitor the alleged use of the barn and expected a planning application on this. If the owner did not make a planning application, it would need to consider whether enforcement action is expedient. However, it said it found no evidence the barn was used as alleged.
36. On noise nuisance, the Council said it investigated Ms X’s previous complaints but did not witness any noise that would amount to statutory nuisance. It confirmed it assigned an officer in March 2024 to investigate Ms X’s recent reports and asked Ms X to contact them with any further information.
37. The Council visited the site again in May 2024. The owner denied allowing guest parties in their agricultural building. The owner said they used the building for a party themselves some time ago, and used it for their own relaxation.
38. The Council issued the owner with a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) in June 2024 over the unauthorised changed of use of an agricultural building. That was because the owner did not submit a planning application. The Council asked the owner for details about the use of the building.
39. The owner responded to the PCN in July 2024. They said the agricultural building was completed over 10 years ago and is used for ancillary use by residents.
40. Ms X contacted the Council in October 2024 providing a link to a booking site which she said showed the owner had not stopped taking group bookings. Ms X said there was screaming, shouting, and music at the site over the weekend. She also said a public footpath on neighbouring land was blocked, meaning guests trespassed on her land. Ms X said the noise was not every weekend, but when there are groups of people.
41. The Council said it would investigate further. It also said investigations were continuing, and it could not yet give a final response.
42. Ms X sent the Council information showing the owner was advertising the site as a wedding venue.
43. Council officers visited the site in December 2024 to assess the commercial activities. They considered the main source of noise was potentially three outside hot tubs with amplified music.
44. The Council sent a statutory nuisance warning letter to the owner, asking them to review their business noise activities and contact the Council to discuss this.
45. The Council sent a further complaint response to Ms X on 19 December, following a site visit with her. The Council confirmed the barns closest to Ms X had permission for two dwellings and one holiday let. It said using the two dwellings as holiday lets does not represent a change of use that needed planning permission.
46. The Council recognised Ms X complained this is not how the owner used the barns. She said the owner often rented them to up to 30 people who rent all the barns over the weekend for gatherings or parties. It said use of the properties by large groups may constitute a change of use, and it would seek legal advice on whether the owner needed planning permission.
47. The Council said it needs to be clear about what permission exists and whether the use that is now occurring is lawful. It said use as a wedding venue would need planning permission. It said it would continue to investigate and provide further updates.
48. The Council also said it would send Ms X more diary sheets to record incidents of loud music and noise nuisance. And it would write to the owner setting out ways to minimise noise through completing a noise management plan.
49. Ms X contacted the Council on 25 December about fireworks being set off, and a party a few days earlier.
50. The Council said it would add the incident to its review. It also asked Ms X to return diary sheets when she had recorded enough incidents to show the issue.
51. Ms X sent the Council diary sheets about the fireworks and loud music over Christmas.
52. The Council wrote to the owner in January 2025. It said it received evidence the owner let out the barn and residential units as a wedding venue. This is a material change of use which the owner needed planning permission for. It asked the owner to make a planning application within 28 days, and confirm their intentions within 14 days.
53. A Public Right of Way (PROW) officer confirmed on 16 January that they visited the site before Christmas and found everything in order. They replaced old or worn Way markers to the PROW.
54. A Council officer visited the owner later in January about use of the site as a wedding venue. The owner said they do not host weddings; they were advertising for a third-party company who would put up marquees on private land with using a Temporary Events Licence. The Council said the owner would need to make a change of use application for this.
55. A Council officer visited the site again on a Thursday evening in late January, and on a Friday evening in early February, but witnessed no audible noise.
56. The Council contacted Ms X on 3 March 2025. It said officers actively monitored the site but had not witnessed any noise or disturbance. It asked Ms X for an update on any recent noise or nuisance.
57. Ms X confirmed it had been quiet, but pointed out it was early in the year and not the best weather.
58. The Council met the owner on 12 March to discuss a noise management plan. it then sent the owner a guidance document to help them create the plan.
59. The Council issued the owner with another PCN later in March 2025 over the alleged change of use of the holiday lets to a wedding venue. It asked the owner for further information about the alleged activities.
60. On 24 March, the Council’s PRWO officer confirmed the markers they placed are still present and no further action was needed.
61. The owner responded to the latest PCN in April. They said their holiday lets can host up to 30 people, but they are not listed for licensed weddings. They have no weddings ceremonies booked in, but hoped to allow a third party to use the site for wedding parties. This would be by erecting temporary marquees under a Temporary Events Licence. They also said they take regular sound readings showing no disruption to the surrounding area.
62. Ms X made more reports of nuisance to Council in April and May. This included the holiday lets being used for stag and hen parties, loud noise, fireworks, and guests trespassing on her land.
63. The Council sent two planning enforcement notices to the owner in June 2025, both about the unauthorised stag and hen parties. One notice was for an unauthorised change of use of a hay loft and stables from residential to stag and hen parties. The second notice was for an unauthorised change of use of a barn from holiday accommodation to stag and hen parties. The notices required the owner to stop the unauthorised use within one month.

My investigation

64. The Council told me its investigations into Ms X’s complaints have been ongoing to explore events and try to identify harm relating to a breach of planning control. The investigations remain open.
65. The Council said there are three properties that can accommodate up to 30 persons across the three. The Council told the owner they need planning permission for larger groups. The owner updated their website following the complaints to reflect the property could not be used for large groups or parties. The Council served planning enforcement notices about the unauthorised stag and hen parties and will continue to monitor the situation.
66. The Council served the owner a PCN regarding the alleged use of the site as a wedding venue and will keep this under review.
67. The Council said it investigated the PROW, and it is not blocked.
68. The Council told me the information received so far from Ms X on log sheets and emails shows sporadic noise disturbances, mainly from people. Currently, there is insufficient evidence of statutory nuisance, but the Council is investigating site management issues related to anti-social behaviour.
69. The Council said it advised the owner to implement a noise management plan when it wrote to them about noise from guests. While the Council has not identified immediate noise when officers visited the site, it has concerns about management of noise from larger groups and party activities. The Council wrote to the owner setting a deadline of the end of June 2025 to provide a noise management plan.
70. The Council said it will implement an out of hours summer initiative on Friday and Saturday evenings for noise monitoring and will add the business to its routine monitoring list. It will give Ms X contact details to report issues occurring in this time.

Analysis

71. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a Council decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
72. I carefully considered all relevant information provided by Ms X and the Council. However, as a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every question a complainant may have about what the Council did. My investigation focused on whether there was evidence of fault having potential to cause significant injustice in the Council’s enforcement decision making.
73. I found the Council acted on the complaints Ms X raised, and I have not seen evidence of fault.
74. I found the Council made several visits to the site and spoke with the business owner about their activities. That included alleged planning breaches and noise or anti-social behaviour from guests.
75. The Council served PCNs to gain further information and to understand the type of use of the buildings on site. It sought advice from its legal department to establish whether there was any material change of use. And it ensured the business owner altered their advertising to make clear to guests that stag and hen parties are not permitted.
76. The Council did not initially consider there was enough evidence of a planning breach or material change of use of the buildings on site to warrant further action. That was a decision the Council was entitled to reach after carrying out investigations.
77. However, in response to further evidence of stag and hen parties at the site, the Council served the owner with enforcement notices requiring the alleged unauthorised use to stop. If there is evidence this use does not stop, the Council can consider further action.
78. The Council’s planning service also liaised with its environmental health service so it could consider potential statutory noise nuisance. While the Council does not currently consider there is enough evidence of statutory nuisance, it will continue to visit the site over summer if Ms X reports more problems. And it is considering possible anti-social behaviour. It awaits a noise management plan from the owner and the investigation remains ongoing.
79. The Council ensured an officer visited twice to check the PROW remains opens and with suitable signage. The Council is satisfied the PROW is open and accessible and I found no evidence of fault in that decision.
80. I found the Council took suitable steps which we would expect it to take in response to Ms X’s complaints. Formal enforcement action comes with a right of appeal and any future prosecution would have to be proven, so the Council must satisfy itself there is sufficient evidence before starting formal action. The Council’s investigations are ongoing, and it has not ruled out further action in future, if there is enough evidence to support it. On the evidence seen, we cannot criticise the Council for that approach.

Back to top

Final Decision

81. I found the Council took suitable steps to investigate Ms X’s complaints and was not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman