Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of enforcement matters. He says the height of the roof was raised on a neighbouring property which contradicted the plans approved on the application. He confirms that he repeatedly raised this to the Council however it delayed and failed to respond to him. He reports this issue has caused him prolonged distress and disruption. We found the Council at fault for its communication. It failed to keep Mr X updated and failed to explain clearly its decision making. We found the Council should apologise, make payment and improve its service in recognition of this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of enforcement matters. He says the height of the roof was raised on a neighbouring property which contradicted the plans approved on the application.
2. Mr X says he repeatedly raised this to the Council, but it delayed and failed to respond to him. Due to the inaction, he says this issue caused him prolonged distress and disruption. He reports he has experienced a significant loss of amenity caused by a reduction of natural light.
3. As a resolution, Mr X has requested the Council take enforcement action to address the planning breach. He has also requested compensation for the prolonged disruption and distress along with the loss of amenity this issue has caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
8. I have also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below. In addition, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

9. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 December 2024, paragraph 60)

What happened

13. In 2023 a planning application for a neighbouring property is rejected by the Council. In 2024, a new application is submitted and approved by the Council. The new application does not show an increase in the height of the roof in the designs.
14. Work commenced at the property in 2024 and in August 2024 Mr X raised a dispute to the Council over the increase of the height of the roof. The Council undertook an inspection and found the roof had been increased contrary to the approved plans.
15. Mr X chased the Council for an update into the enforcement action from September 2024 onwards. In March 2025 he made a complaint to the Council. The Council provided its first response to the complaint in July 2025, following this a final response was completed in August 2025.
16. The Council apologised for the delay in its response and admitted to procedural errors in both its response to the complaint and its handling of the enforcement action.

Analysis

17. The Council has accepted it is at fault for the way that it handled the complaint and enforcement action. It failed to keep Mr X updated and did not communicate clearly its decision about enforcement. I consider this fault to have caused Mr X injustice in the form of both doubt and avoidable distress. Both in having to contact the Council back repeatedly for an update and for feeling like the Council were not treating him fairly.
18. I consider the Council should apologise to Mr X for the injustice this issue has caused and provide him with an award in consideration of this.
19. The Council has provided evidence of the communication it had with the architect of the development. This shows there was a mistake in the original application. In that despite stating in the designs the roof would not be increased, in the same application the architect had confirmed the roof would be increased slightly.
20. During the enforcement action, the Council asked for the work to be stopped, and changes made to reflect the approved design. Once the work recommenced, Mr X confirms the roof height remained unchanged – in that it had been increased.
21. The Council then in its role of enforcement considered whether to act against the development. After receiving advice, it decided against this. I must consider that enforcement action is discretionary.
22. In the advice the Council relied on, it compared the location of the development in contrast to Mr X’s property and other neighbouring properties. It found the increase of height (0.6 meters) would have a minimal impact on light amenity and considered Mr X’s property directly in this consideration.
23. Also, the Council considered that Mr X had previously had an application approved at his property and that it was likely that retrospective approval would be granted to his neighbour. As the Council has considered these factors when deciding and enforcement action is discretionary, I cannot find fault that it did not act.
24. I do consider the Council could have communicated better to Mr X about the decision it made about enforcement. This failure contributed towards the distress Mr X felt about this matter, in feeling that the Council were not treating him fairly. It should have explained the advice it had been provided better and told Mr X that it had considered his concerns over a loss of amenity.
25. In consideration of this, I find the Council should provide its staff who make enforcement decisions, a copy of this decision to remind them to communicate outcomes better to complainants.

Back to top

Action

26. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the avoidable and unnecessary delays caused in its handling of the enforcement investigation.
2. Pay Mr X £300 in total for the avoidable and unnecessary delays caused in its handling of the enforcement investigation.
3. Provide a copy of this decision to its staff who make enforcement decisions to remind them to communicate outcomes better to complainants.
27. 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.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice. I found the Council should apologise, make service improvements and make payment to Mr X for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman