Summary: The Council was not at fault. The Council acted in line with the planning enforcement process we would expect about a breach of planning control relating to a housing development Mr X lived on.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce against a breach of planning control to complete a housing development he lives on. Mr X was also unhappy the Council approved a further development the same developer owned, despite enforcement action not having been taken on his development. Mr X also had concerns about a letter he received from the Council and the complaint response the Council provided which said Mr X, as a leaseholder of one of the flats in the development, would also be served with enforcement action if the matter progressed. Mr X said he was caused uncertainty, frustration and distress.

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. 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 s34H(1), as amended).
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. As explained in paragraph three above we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in July 2025 about events starting in 2022. The period between 2022 and June 2024 is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate the entire late period because Mr X could have reasonably complained to us earlier.
5. I have investigated between July 2024 which was 12 months before Mr X complained to us and July 2025 which was after the Council issued its stage two complaint response and when Mr X complained to us.
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
7. I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns that the Council granted planning permission to the same developer for a new development close to Mr X’s home when the Council were aware the developer had not complied with the planning permission on Mr X’s development. This is because the Council makes planning application decisions on a case-by-case basis and each decision is taken on its own merits. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating further.
8. I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns that he would be liable to comply with an enforcement notice as he is a leaseholder of the development. This is a legal matter and he can take legal advice if any action is taken against him.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I read Mr X’s complaint and supporting documents and spoke to him on the telephone. I spoke to a Council planning enforcement officer. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided. I considered the Council’s policies, and relevant law and guidance as set out below.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Planning

11. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan unless other material planning considerations say they should not.
12. Planning considerations include issues like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
13. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
14. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Planning Enforcement

15. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning controls have been breached. 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.
16. Government guidance encourages councils to resolve issues through negotiation and dialogue with developers. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider these issues. Formal planning enforcement action is also available to a council. Councils are free to make their own judgement on how or whether to act.

Council’s enforcement policy

17. The Council’s planning enforcement policy ‘Croydon Council Planning Enforcement Plan’ was issued in September 2017. It said its Enforcement Plan had been prepared having regard to Government policy and guidance on planning enforcement to show how the Council would manage enforcement proactively.
18. The Plan said all enquiries would be acknowledged within five working days following receipt, the enquirer would be informed of key milestones in the investigation and the outcome of the investigation. The enforcement policy said it would prioritise each potential breach of planning control into two categories Priority 1 and Priority 2. It said for Priority 2 breaches including not adhering to planning conditions (such as this case) a site inspection would take place within 10 working days.
19. The Council’s Enforcement Plan said the options open to the Council if a breach was established included informal action through negotiation, submission of a retrospective planning application, no further action where a minor or insignificant breach of control had occurred and formal action was not justified or formal action where a report would be prepared explaining why it would be expedient to take the agreed course of action.

What happened

20. More than six years ago, planning permission was granted for a new housing development. It included planning conditions for play space, refuse storage, landscaping and surface water drainage.
21. Mr X later purchased a property on the development.

Background

22. In early 2023, Mr X raised concerns with the Council about the failure of the developer to complete works required by the planning permission on the development he lived in. The Council opened a planning enforcement case and visited the site. Over the next 18 months, the Council was in regular contact with the developer who assured the Council that the unfinished works were underway. Mr X contacted his MP and made a formal complaint to the Council about its failure to take adequate enforcement action against the developer. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint stating that it was taking informal action against the developer in line with its planning enforcement policy.

July 2024 onwards

23. The Council continued to negotiate with the developer. In July 2024 a Council planning enforcement officer, Officer 1, carried out a site visit and confirmed that the developer had made some minor improvements and the developer told Officer 1 that landscape specialists were working on a revised landscaping scheme. In Autumn 2024, the developer submitted a revised landscape application to the Council. Officer 1 notified Mr X about the application and said that it was awaiting a planning decision. The Council did not approve the application. The case officer report said the developer did not submit enough information on the hard or soft landscaping, or on the boundary treatment, no information was provided on the child play space and the number of trees was also reduced.
24. Officer 1 continued to chase the developer for an update in late 2024 and early 2025. In early 2025 the Council and developer discussed the play equipment provision and the need for it to be included in any revised applications.
25. Mr X told me he did not escalate his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process until early February 2025 because it was an ongoing situation. When Mr X escalated his complaint he said the breaches in planning control were still outstanding and no closer to being resolved.
26. Officer 1 continued to contact the developer in April 2025 for an update. The developer told Officer 1 in spring 2025 the play equipment had been ordered. Officer 1 contacted Mr X with the play equipment update. Officer 1 continued to contact the developer asking when work would commence on site.
27. In mid-May 2025 the Council sent its stage two complaint response to Mr X. It explained enforcement powers were discretionary and before taking enforcement action the Council must demonstrate harm and any action was proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary. It said it was committed to getting the planning issues resolved and did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It gave Mr X the Ombudsman contact details if he remained unhappy.
28. In late May and June 2025 Officer 1 and the developer continued to communicate about current works being completed on site. In July 2025 Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.

Latest position

29. When I spoke to Mr X and Officer 1 in February and March 2026 they both told me the Council had started formal enforcement procedures on the breaches of planning control.

My findings

30. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant. I have considered the processes by which the decisions were made and my findings are as follows.
31. Planning enforcement is discretionary and government guidance encourages negotiation and advises that formal action should generally be used as a last resort. When Mr X first raised his concerns with the Council, Officer 1 worked with the developer without any undue delay, carried out site visits and continued to regularly negotiate with the developer to persuade them to resolve the breaches of planning control informally at the development Mr X lives in. This was an approach it was entitled to make.
32. The Council also considered a revised landscape planning application which was not approved but it was entitled to make that decision and was part of the informal enforcement process. The Council updated Mr X at key milestones in line with its Enforcement Plan. The Council’s planning enforcement process on this case was in line with both government planning policy and the Councils Enforcement Plan and it was free to make its own judgement on how or whether to act. The Council was not at fault and has since decided to take formal planning enforcement action. It is not the Ombudsman role to say the Council should have made that decision sooner.

Back to top

Decision

33. I have completed my investigation finding no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman