Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council’s handling of planning control concerns about a property she owns. She said it wrongly threatened with enforcement action which led to her having building costs and financial losses. We found fault by the Council for its flawed assumptions about the permitted use of the property. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the unnecessary distress and uncertainty this caused her. However, we cannot say the Council caused her financial detriment as such matters are for the courts to decide.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs F, complained the Council wrongly threatened her with planning enforcement action and provided incorrect advice relating to the use of her business property.
2. Mrs F said, as a result, she experienced distress and uncertainty. She said she relied on its advice and changed the layout and facilities of her property, which resulted in costs, delays in opening, and a loss of income.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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 Mrs F and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs F 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

Relevant law and guidance

Permitted development

9. Not all development needs planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.
10. Some permitted development proposals need an application so the council can decide whether it can or should control certain parts of the development, such as design and materials issues or access to the highway. These applications are known as ‘prior notification’ applications.

Planning Use Classes

11. Planning uses of land or ‘use classes’ are set out in regulations. They cover a range of typical uses, like residential, business, industrial and commercial. Some uses do not fit within the use classes and planners refer to these as ‘sui generis’ which means ‘of its own kind’ or ‘unique’.
12. Planning permission is usually needed to change a use from one class to another. Whether a change of use has occurred is a matter of ‘fact and degree’ for the Council to decide.

Planning Enforcement

13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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

17. Mrs F is the owner of a property which has planning permission to be used as a business and some residential use. The approved plans show the owner’s accommodation was primarily on the ground floor. However, this had no bedrooms and previous owners had therefore used above ground floor bedrooms as part of the private accommodation.
18. In Autumn 2024 the Council received a planning enforcement concern about Mrs F’s property. The allegation was there had been a change of use.
19. The Council carried out an unannounced visit and subsequently arranged a visit with Mrs F to inspect the property. This was also attended by the Fire and Rescue Service, its housing service, and a health & safety officer.
20. During the inspected the property was under renovations. Mrs F and her family was living in upstairs bedrooms. The outcome was:
• The Fire and Rescue service found concerns about the fire safety of the family due to construction works and materials which may impede a safe exit from the building in the event of a fire. Advice was provided to Mrs F to ensure the escape routes and fire safety compliance;
• Health & safety gave advice about general safety including windows, food, and gas.
• Planning enforcement raised concerns about Mrs F using upstairs bedrooms as private bedrooms. She was informed she should reallocate the owner’s accommodation to only be on the ground floor. It also told her to seek advice from a planning consultant or architect.
21. Mrs F said the Enforcement officer was threatening and insisted enforcement action would be taken unless she relocated the owner’s accommodation to the ground floor. The reasons she was given included fire safety, tax purposes, and not mixing leisure and work use.
22. Mrs F decided to amend her plans for the property. This included reducing planned ground floor facilities for guests. She arranged for the works to be carried out having relied on the Council’s planning enforcement comments.
23. In Spring 2025 Mrs F challenged the Council’s planning enforcement view of the approved plans for the property. She said the plans did not show any owner’s bedrooms on the ground floor.
24. In response the Council did not change its view. Its explanations included upstairs rooms would not meet residential space standards under housing law and a change of use would have occurred as only the ground floor was for residential purposes. It said this would be a breach of planning control. It again said Mrs F could seek advice from a planning agent or architect.

Mrs F’s complaint

25. In April 2025 Mrs F complained to the Council about its handling of planning enforcement for her property. She said:
• its officer’s conduct, advice and threats about enforcement action had caused her significant financial loss, distress and disruption to her business and family. She had relied on the information but felt she had been misled and coerced;
• the Council’s view about the owner’s accommodation in the property was wrong, as the approved plans did not show any bedrooms on the ground floor, and did not show which upstairs bedrooms were for the owner’s use;
• the Fire and Rescue service had not condemned living upstairs, and disputed rooms did not meet the space standards; and
• she wanted an apology, compensation, reimbursement of her building works, confirmation she was entitled to use the upstairs bedrooms, and for the Council to investigate the enforcement officer’s conduct.
26. In response the Council found the advice and information it had provided Mrs F was correct. It explained the approved plans looks like owner’s bedrooms are on the first floor.
27. Mrs F escalated her complaint with the Council. She said the approved plans does not show where the owner’s bedrooms are and this should not therefore be presumed. She asked for clarity as its responses had been inconsistent.
28. In its final response the Council said it had reconsidered and reviewed the approved plans. It found:
• its enforcement visit and advice was appropriate at the time. Its officer had been helpful and connected Mrs F with other relevant services, and recommended she sought advice from a planning agent;
• no works had taken place which required planning permission and acknowledged an owner living above ground floor would not always require planning permission. This was because the approved plans lacked details and there were no conditions in place for the property;
• its stage one response had considered the potential future use of a self-contained unit above the ground floor which would require planning permission. However, its response had been wrong as it incorrectly assumed planning permission would be required due to lack of detail on the plans, and apologised; and
• no compensation was due to Mrs F. It explained the incorrect information in its stage one response was after she had already undertaken the works.
29. Mrs F asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. She also said the Council’s complaints handling had been poor.

Analysis and findings

Was there fault in how the Council considered planning enforcement?

30. The Council acted on a planning control concern which was reported to it regarding Mrs F’s use of her property. In doing so it arranged visits to inspect the works which was taking place and her use of the property. It also arranged for other relevant services to be involved in the visit due to the planned use of the business. This was within the remit of its planning enforcement role.
31. The Council planning enforcement shared its views about the property, the use, and the works Mrs F was intending to complete. It is clear the Council had a flawed view of where the owner’s accommodation in the property was allowed to be from its initial visit in September 2024 until its stage two response in June 2025. This is because it wrongly believed Mrs F as the owner of the property should not live in bedrooms above the ground floor. This was fault.
32. The Council told Mrs F she should seek advice from a planning agent or an architect in Autumn 2024 and again in Spring 2025. However, Mrs F did not do so and relied on the information from the Council. She decided to amend her plans and changed the layout and facilities of the property.
33. While I understand Mrs F’s reasons for doing so, this was a decision she made. She could have sought the advice the Council recommended or contest any formal planning enforcement action by the Council. Either would have made it clear her intended use was within the permitted development and use of the property.
34. While I have found some fault by the Council for its flawed understanding of the approved plans of Mrs F’s property, what Mrs F is seeking is compensation for the cost of her building works and future or potential losses of business income. Such claims are for the courts to consider. I cannot therefore say whether its fault led to her financial costs or losses.
35. However, I am satisfied the Council’s fault caused Mrs F some unnecessary distress and uncertainty. The Council has apologised for its incorrect view and assumptions about the plans for the property.
36. I found the Council’s apology was not enough to the remedy the impact its fault had on Mrs F. In reaching my view I had regard to:
• the length of time and communication Mrs F had with the Council before it realised and acknowledged its incorrect assumptions; and
• if Mrs F had acted on the Council’s suggestion to seek advice from a planning agent. This would have resulted in unnecessary costs which is likely to have justified a remedy or reimbursement.
37. A symbolic payment is therefore an appropriate remedy to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty Mrs F experienced.

Officer conduct

38. Mrs F complained about the conduct of the Council’s officer, including making threats about enforcement action, and referring to other issues of concern including fire safety and room standards.
39. It is clear the officer believed her use and intended works would be in breach of planning control and therefore shared the risk of enforcement action. He also shared concerns raised by the Fire & Rescue service, and concerns about room standards, but made it clear those concerns were not for planning enforcement to address.
40. Other than the officer’s flawed understanding of the permitted plans and use for the property, which has been considered above. I have not seen evidence of inappropriate communication or conduct by the officer.
41. While I understand this may have been concerning to Mrs F, the officer was acting within the scope of his role. Even though his view at the time was flawed based on the incorrect understanding of the approved use.

Complaints handling

42. Mrs F said the Council’s complaints handling was poor.
43. I found its initial complaint response was provided within the timescales in its policy, but there was a very short delay in its stage two response. I also acknowledge its initial response did not identify its flawed understanding of the permitted use of the property, but this was corrected in its final complaint response. I have therefore not found fault in process the Council followed.

Back to top

Action

44. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mrs F, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. pay Mrs F a symbolic payment of £150 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty she experienced as a result of its flawed assumptions about the permitted use of her property.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault which caused Mrs F some distress and uncertainty. The Council will make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact its fault had on her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman