Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not follow due process to investigate alleged planning breaches at a neighbouring residential site. He says the Council failed to take appropriate enforcement action. Mr X says the Council’s actions negatively impacted his family’s mental health and caused avoidable stress. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and has agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not follow due process to investigate alleged planning breaches at a neighbouring residential site. He says the Council has failed to take appropriate enforcement action. Mr X says the Council’s actions negatively impacted his family’s mental health and caused avoidable stress. He also says the development at the neighbouring site overlooks his property, impacting the use of his garden. He would like the Council to undertake a thorough investigation of the alleged breaches, for him to have an opportunity to comment on any planning applications relating to the site, and for the Council to provide a financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

Planning enforcement

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Councils have a range of options for taking formal planning enforcement action, including issuing a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN). PCNs require information from the owner or occupier of land. They also provide an opportunity to rectify the alleged breach.

The Council’s enforcement policy

10. The Council’s enforcement policy says the Council will record and acknowledge alleged breaches of planning control and will investigate complaints made based on sound planning issues. The policy says the Council will assess the complaint and consider how to proceed with the investigation based on the nature and degree of harm of any breach in relation to relevant planning policy, and the need for remedial action.
11. The policy says the Council will only take formal enforcement action when expedient to do so. It says any enforcement action taken will be commensurate with the seriousness of the breach.
12. The policy also says all decisions and use of investigatory powers will be recorded. It says the Council will look for and consider any alternative solution to formal action if it achieves a satisfactory conclusion to a reported breach of planning control.

Principles of good administrative practice

13. In 2018 the Ombudsman published a guidance document (updated in January 2025), setting out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction, “Principles of Good Administrative Practice”. The guidance includes:
• Stating the criteria for decision making and giving reasons for decisions
• Keeping proper and appropriate records
• Explaining clearly the rationale for decisions and recording them

What happened

14. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
15. Mr X reported an alleged breach of planning control to the Council in May 2023. He complained a neighbour was renting out their property, thereby changing the use of the building. He complained the neighbour had also carried out unapproved extensions to a garage building and had breached planning conditions by turning it into accommodation. Mr X told the Council the development overlooked his property and garden, and that this restricted his use of it. Mr X said the development also negatively impacted his views of the countryside.
16. The Council contacted Mr X’s neighbour shortly after. Mr X’s neighbour told the Council they had sought advice on the matter; they asked the Council to allow them time to instruct a planning consultant.
17. In June 2023, Mr X reported a further alleged breach of planning control by his neighbour. He complained they had undertaken works outside the curtilage of their property, including raising the ground level and carrying out building works. Mr X said the works carried out contravened environmental policies. He also said the raised ground level meant anyone on the raised land could see into his garden in an area used by his children.
18. The Council says it visited the site in September 2023 but could not gain access. The Council says it took photographs from a public footpath as part of its investigation into Mr X’s concerns.
19. In May 2024, Mr X emailed the Council to say building works were being carried out at his neighbour’s property. The Council told Mr X it would carry out a site visit.
20. The Council visited the site the following day. It recorded that it was highly likely an outbuilding on the site was not permitted development and would require a planning application to be submitted. The Council also made brief notes regarding its conversation with Mr X’s neighbour regarding the use of the garage as a residential space.
21. The Council wrote to Mr X on 23 July 2024 in response to his complaints about alleged planning control breaches. The Council said:
• it had contacted the owner of the neighbouring property who advised that they had used the garage as residential accommodation since 2008, adapting the building over several years. The Council told Mr X it considered it was unreasonable to take immediate action due to the passage of time and because the owner could make an application for lawful use.
• the garage did not conform to the approved plans, but the owner had said they would get an architect to make the relevant submissions to the Council. The Council said it considered it was not expedient to take action; it considered it was sufficient to allow time for the owners to rectify the breach regarding the works undertaken.
• the owner told it the garage building was occupied by family members as an ancillary building to the main dwelling and was not rented out as a separate dwelling. It said the owner confirmed the main house was the family’s main residence, but it acknowledged the property appeared on websites for holiday lettings.
• it considered it was likely that the construction of an outbuilding on the site would require planning permission.
• it was preparing to issue a PCN to the owners and it would request the submission of a planning application.
22. Mr X complained to the Council again on 23 July 2024. He disagreed with the Council’s response and said the accommodation on his neighbour’s property was being advertised and rented as holiday accommodation. Mr X said his neighbour had converted their garage into a house and had completed this in 2021. He said this meant the Council could still take action to order its demolition and reinstatement as a garage. Mr X said the Council had not addressed the matter regarding the raised groundworks and additional building works; he said he strongly opposed this building work as it was an invasion of his privacy. Mr X said he considered the Council had not followed relevant procedures and guidance.
23. The Council issued a PCN to Mr X’s neighbour in early September 2024.
24. Shortly after, the Council wrote to Mr X following its stage two consideration of his complaint. The Council said it was investigating his concerns, but this often took a considerable amount of time. The Council said it was investigating to determine whether there was a breach of planning control and if it was expedient to take action. It told Mr X it had issued a PCN to gather more information and that it would review the case again once it received a response.
25. The Council received the response to the PCN in October 2024.
26. The Council says it carried out a further site visit in early November 2024. It says it met with the landowner who agreed to submit planning applications relating to the matters raised by Mr X.
27. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

What happened next

28. The Council says in April 2025, it received planning applications regarding the alterations made to the garage and for the replacement of the outbuilding.
29. Mr X wrote to the Council in July 2025 to object to the planning applications.

Analysis

30. The Council says it did not initially consider it expedient to take formal enforcement action, considering it was appropriate to invite retrospective planning applications. It says the only formal enforcement action it has taken was the issuance of the PCN, which it served to gather information to inform future decisions. The Council says it considered this course of action was proportionate to the breaches.
31. The Council also says:
• it investigated the use of Mr X’s neighbour’s property for short term lets, and following the response to the PCN and conversations with the landowner, it is yet to determine if this constitutes a material change of use of the land.
• the landowner has submitted planning applications for the detached garage and outbuilding, and once it has determined the outcome of these applications, further decisions will be made on whether further planning enforcement action is required and proportionate. It is noted that Mr X has submitted his objections to the applications, and the outcome of the application process is currently undecided.
• it made its decisions based on the evidence available to it at the time, and that it sought to employ a proportionate approach. It says it considered the information obtained from its visits to the site, discussions with its enforcement team leader and development manager, and consideration of the impact of the development on Mr X.
• its enforcement case remains open, and investigations are ongoing.
32. I have reviewed the Council’s records and find they support the explanation given. As previously stated, enforcement action is at the discretion of local authorities, and it is for councils to decide what, if any, enforcement action to take.
33. I acknowledge Mr X’s comments that he considers the Council has not taken appropriate enforcement action. However, the Council has confirmed it currently has an open, ongoing enforcement case. The outcome of the Council’s consideration of the planning applications, and its impact on the ongoing enforcement case is unknown at this stage. As a result, the Council has not yet concluded its consideration of what, if any, further enforcement action is appropriate.
34. Because the Council’s enforcement case is ongoing, I am unable to make a finding regarding Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to take appropriate enforcement action. Mr X may wish to bring this matter to us again once the Council’s enforcement case has concluded and if he remains dissatisfied with the outcome.

The Council’s records

35. I have reviewed the Council’s records and case notes regarding the complaints made by Mr X. The evidence shows the Council did not record all of the site visits undertaken relating to its enforcement case, specifically, its visits made in September 2023 and November 2024.
36. In addition, whilst I acknowledge the Council’s explanation for its decisions regarding this case and acknowledge that councils can make their own decisions about what, if any, enforcement action to take, the Council’s case notes do not record the rationale for these decisions. The Council’s records do not show how/why the Council considered it was unreasonable to take immediate action following its visit in May 2024, or how/why it considered it was not expedient to take action regarding the garage building.
37. This is not in accordance with the Council’s enforcement policy as this states all decisions will be recorded. This is also not in accordance with the principles of good administrative practice, (giving reasons for decisions, keeping proper records and explaining and recording the rationale for decisions). As a result, the Council is at fault regarding this aspect of the complaint. The injustice to Mr X is the uncertainty of how the Council reached the decisions it has made to date.

Back to top

Action

38. To address the injustice to Mr X, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the fault identified. 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;
2. Remind staff to adhere to its enforcement policy and the principles of good administrative practice, specifically to keep full and appropriate records of actions taken and the rationale for decisions made, and
3. Remind staff to provide the Council’s rationale for its decisions as part of its complaint responses.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to address the injustice identified and I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman