Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions relating to a planning breach at a property near to his. We do not find any fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has sufficiently considered the breach and chosen not to take any enforcement action. This is a decision for the Council to make. We do not uphold this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council should have enforced a planning breach he reported to it about gates installed at a property near to his own.
2. He says the Council not taking enforcement action has caused him distress and frustration.

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. 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

5. I have considered all the information Mr X and the Council provided.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning Enforcement – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

7. 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.
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. 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 (NPPF) December 2024, paragraph 60)

What happened

10. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
11. In 2021, a property (Property A) near to Mr X’s home submitted a planning application to re-develop the existing site. Part of the original application specified gates at the front of the property to border the footpath.
12. Various parties, including Mr X, objected to the gates. The case officer’s report highlighted these objections.
13. The gates were then removed from the submitted application. The Council granted permission for the revised application. Work subsequently began on the site.
14. Towards the end of 2023, Mr X reported a planning breach to the Council. He said Property A had installed gates at the front of the site which went against its agreed planning permission.
15. Mr X and the Council communicated about the alleged breach in January 2024.
16. Internal Council communications around the same time show it noted there were no conditions in the approved plan that prevented a gate. The Council noted that some of the original objections were linked to the solid nature of the original gate meaning no visibility to the street outside. The Council considered that the recently installed metal gates allowed visibility and therefore considered them to be acceptable. It further noted that another property along the street had also had metal gates installed.
17. At the beginning of February, the Council wrote to Mr X with its decision on the alleged breach. Amongst other points, the letter:
• confirmed the breach;
• advised enforcement action was discretionary and was only taken when the breach caused material harm;
• confirmed that if a planning application was submitted to keep the gates it was likely to be approved; and
• said no formal action would be taken as it would not be appropriate, not be a good use of resources, did not result in material planning harm or serve any useful purpose.
18. Mr X complained to the Council and worked through its stage one and two complaint processes. In its stage one response the Council explained in more detail why no enforcement action was going to be taken and the rationale for the decision. It did not uphold his complaint.
19. In its stage two response sent in mid-May 2024, the Council said it could not add anything to its previous response and did not uphold his complaint. It signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.
20. Mr X brought his complaint to us at the beginning of May 2025.

Analysis

21. 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. A difference of opinion is not evidence of fault.
22. 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.
23. I am satisfied the Council has sufficiently considered the reported breach and the relevant circumstances surrounding matters linked to the gates at Property A. The decision not to take enforcement action about the confirmed breach is one the Council is entitled to take. I consider it has adequately explained its rationale to Mr X across the various contacts with him. I do not find fault in the Council’s actions.
24. I acknowledge Mr X’s frustration. However, in the circumstances of this complaint, I am also satisfied he has not suffered significant injustice that would warrant further investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I find no fault in the Council’s actions. I do not uphold this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman