Summary: Mr X complained that the Council’s decision not to serve an enforcement notice on development adjacent to his property was wrong. Mr X also raised a complaint with us about a planning fee he paid in the early 2000’s. We found there was no fault in the Council’s decision not to issue an enforcement notice. We did not investigate the planning fee issue as it occurred too long ago.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council’s decision not to serve an enforcement notice on development adjacent to his property was wrong. Mr X says the position with development on the land was settled in a court case in 2010. He complains the Council’s failure to serve a notice has prevented his lawful use and enjoyment of buildings that were part of a planning permission he obtained some years ago.
2. Mr X also raised a complaint with us about a planning fee he paid in the early 2000’s. For various reasons he considers the fee was unreasonable and may represent a breach of contract.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mr X’s complaint refers to events that occurred over 20 years ago. We generally expect complaints to be brought to us within 12 months of someone being aware of the issues that are subject to complaint. Mr X complained to us in April 2025, so the events prior to April 2024 are late. We found it was reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to us sooner about the events that are late, so we have not investigated them. We have investigated recent contacts Mr X had with the Council.
7. I have not investigated the concerns Mr X raises about the planning fee he was charged in the late 2000’s. The fee Mr X refers to was charged for the administration of a planning application over 20 years ago, and it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome by investigating this now. If Mr X believes the fee he paid placed contractual obligations on the Council, and these have been breached, it is open to him to seek to enforce these through the courts. The Ombudsman is not a court and cannot determine any alleged contractual issues.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr 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 Enforcement – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

10. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to a breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of any 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)

Background

13. The information in this statement provides an overview of the key events most relevant to the complaint. It is not intended to set out everything that happened.
14. There is a complex planning history to Mr X’s property and a site adjacent to it. Over 20 years ago the Council issued an enforcement notice requiring Mr X to demolish an extension he built to the rear of his property which constituted a breach of planning control. In the early 2000’s Mr X obtained planning permission to develop the whole site which included his extension, so this was partly a retrospective application, and partly for new development.
15. The Council later used a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to purchase the adjacent site. This meant, as Mr X did not own the site, he could not proceed with the development of the whole site that he had permission for.
16. In the late 2000’s the Council’s planning committee decided the Council should proceed with enforcement action against Mr X’s extension. Mr X challenged the planning committee’s decision in court. The court decided the Council’s enforcement decision was unlawful and it quashed it. Broadly, this was because the Court found that the planning permission obtained by Mr X in the early 2000’s had cancelled the effect of the enforcement notice which had been issued some years before.
17. More recently the Council approved a planning application from another party to develop the site adjacent to Mr X’s property. Building work has now started on the land.

Mr X’s complaint

18. I understand Mr X has been in dispute with the Council about the site adjacent to his property for a number of years. Mr X complained to the Council again about the site in early 2025. He sought planning enforcement action to be taken to immediately stop the development which had started on the adjacent land. The Council declined to do this.
19. The current developer of the site had planning permission for their development. Mr X has not alleged that the current developer of the site is in breach of those new plans. i.e. he does not complain that what is being built on the site is different to what the Council approved. Rather, Mr X insists that the Council should issue an enforcement notice to cease the current development based on his understanding of historic issues and his belief that only his planning permission, approved in the early 2000’s, can legally be built. He cites case law which, he says, supports his view.
20. The Council provided evidence that it had replied to Mr X in February 2025, declining to respond to his detailed arguments about the site history and previous permissions. It stated it had responded to these previously on a number of occasions. The Council told Mr X that his previous planning permission did not prohibit the lawful implementation of the more recent planning permission granted in 2023. As the historic issues had been addressed in detail in past years, it did not address them again.
21. Council officers also responded to a councillor Mr X had approached. They re‑iterated the Council’s view that the historic arguments about the site had been considered and responded to previously. Officers told the councillor that Mr X no longer had legal title over the land (following the compulsory purchase) so, he could not implement the planning permission he obtained in the early 2000’s. The Council stated that it disagreed with Mr X’s view that he was legally entitled to carry out his development and it had set out its reasons in previous complaint responses.
22. Mr X continued to call and write to the Council with correspondence making the same or similar points. The Council told Mr X in March and again in April 2025 that it had explained its view, Mr X had exhausted its complaints processes and it would not respond further. Mr X brought the matter to us as a result.

Was there fault by the Council

23. When someone makes a report that there is a breach of planning control, we would expect the Council to take reasonable steps to consider the report and to decide what (if any) action it should take. The NPPF makes it clear that councils are not obliged to take planning enforcement action. It is a discretionary decision for officers to take on the facts before them.
24. In Mr X’s case, he does not allege that the developer of the site has not acted in accordance with the plans the Council approved. Rather he argues that his planning permission from the early 2000’s should be implemented instead. It is clear that Mr X has explained his view on this at length to the Council.
25. I am satisfied that the Council has considered Mr X’s arguments and it explained its view that Mr X’s earlier planning permission does not lawfully prevent the current development from going ahead. As the Council does not agree with Mr X’s claims, it has decided not to issue an enforcement notice.
26. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. We look at how a council made its decision. If we consider it followed the correct processes, we cannot question whether the decision it made was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with it. I found there was no fault by the Council and there are no grounds for me to question its decisions.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman