Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to take prompt enforcement action against her neighbours’ breach of planning permission. We found the Council to be at fault because it allowed the case to drift and so took too long to act. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, time and trouble. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, made a symbolic payment and improve its customer service.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to take prompt enforcement action against her neighbours’ breach of planning permission. She says her property is severely overlooked by oversized decking.
2. She says this caused significant distress and affected the enjoyment of her home.

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. 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 Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

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. 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.
9. Councils have a range of options for formal planning enforcement action available to them, including issuing a Planning Enforcement Notice (PEN). Where there is evidence of a breach a PEN requires action to remedy it.
10. However, 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.

Retrospective planning applications

11. Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (S73A) allows retrospective planning applications to be made for development which has already been carried out without permission.
12. It also allows applications to be made for planning permission to authorise development which has been carried out without complying with plans which were part of the original approved application.

The Council’s planning enforcement policy

13. This states the Council’s commitment to persons reporting a breach is to:

• quickly register and acknowledge the case;
• give each case a priority rating; and
• actively pursue the case until it is closed when we will let you know the outcome.

What happened

14. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “Analysis” section of this decision statement.
15. In 2009, Mrs X’s neighbours, Mr and Mrs D granted planning permission for a raised decking platform to the rear of their property (The Property). Mrs X says she has since realised the decking, as built, was larger than in the approved plans.
16. In 2024, Mr and Mrs D removed the existing structure and replaced it with larger one. Mrs X realised this during its construction and reported it to the Council in May 2024. She expected the Council to issue a stop notice to prevent its completion.
17. Shortly afterwards, the Council carried out a site visit. The enforcement officer (Officer B) agreed the structure did not comply with the existing planning permission.
18. Two months after his site visit, and after two reminder emails from Mrs X, Officer B confirmed in writing he would be asking Mr and Mrs D to submit a retrospective planning application to regularise the breach.
19. Mrs X heard nothing further and lodged a formal complaint in October 2024. She explained the width, depth and raised elevation of the decking meant she had lost all privacy to the rear of her home.
20. In November 2024, Officer B told Mrs X that her neighbours had been asked to submit a retrospective planning application which they did shortly afterwards.
21. Mrs X and others objected to the application. In January 2025, the Council refused the application and shortly afterwards issued a PEN, directing Mr and Mrs D to reduce the size of the decking within six months. Mr and Mrs D submitted an appeal against this notice to the Planning Inspectorate. This has yet to be decided.
22. Disappointed and frustrated by the Council’s poor communication and failure to take prompt and effective action to prevent the completion of the decking and resulting impact on her privacy, Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s position

23. In response to Mrs X’s complaint and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council said:

• although the initial acknowledgement and site visit had been completed within expected timescales, it had then failed to “actively pursue the case”; and
• it failed to provide sufficient updates about what was happening with the case and did not respond to some correspondence from Mrs X.

24. The Council apologised to Mrs X and said it was exploring ways to improve communication and customer service.

Analysis

Enforcement action

25. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether development is in breach of planning permission or what enforcement action should have been taken. Instead, we focus on whether the correct procedure was followed.
26. In this case, although the Council investigated Mrs X’s concerns and took appropriate enforcement action, it took long to do so because it allowed the case to drift after the site visit.
27. It took approximately six months from when Mrs X made her report to when Mr and Mrs D were told they needed to submit a planning application. While I accept planning enforcement can be a lengthy process, the Council’s enforcement policy expects cases to be “actively pursued”.
28. This did not happen in that case and is fault. There was further fault with some poor communication that added to Mrs X’s frustration, time and trouble.
29. To the Council’s credit, this fault was acknowledged at stage two of its complaints procedure and an apology offered to Mrs X.
30. However, I do not consider an apology is an adequate remedy. Mrs X has explained the frustration, time and trouble she experienced because the Council did not act in accordance with its own customer charter. This injustice requires an additional remedy (below).

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Mrs X.
2. Pay Mrs X £150 as a symbolic payment to acknowledge her frustration, time and trouble.
3. Provide the Ombudsman with a summary report of the action it has taken, or intends to take, to ensure future compliance with its own enforcement policy.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice to Mrs X and improve its service. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman