Summary: The complaint is about the Council planning team’s inaction about a breach of planning control. We find no fault with how the Council dealt with the breach.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains about how the Council has dealt with a breach of planning control. He says a property near his home has been converted to 11 self-contained flats, without permission. The unauthorised work started in 2024, but despite many complaints and evidence the Council has not taken any action. Mr D says the development significantly impacts his home.

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. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

6. 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. Planning enforcement action is discretionary. So 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.
7. A retrospective application allows a council, as planning authority, to give local people an opportunity to comment on that development and then assess it against planning policies. Normally, development meeting planning policies will get planning permission, unless there are other relevant planning reasons to justify refusal. If a council does refuse a planning application, the developer has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
8. 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)

The Council’s Local Enforcement Plan

9. The Council’s Local Enforcement Plan says:
• it would investigate all reports about alleged breaches of planning control, except those reported anonymously, to determine whether there was a breach. If it found a breach it would then consider what was the most appropriate course of action;
• its decisions on action would consider proportionality and focus action on the most serious risks;
• it would inform anyone reporting a breach when the outcome of its investigation was clear;

• where appropriate, it would negotiate with those responsible for any breach of planning control, allowing them the opportunity to resolve matters before serving a formal notice. It would not take formal action until negotiations had failed;
• has provision for not immediately investigating new cases during significantly busy periods;
• has a priority system.

Certificate of lawfulness

10. A resident can seek formal confirmation from councils that an existing or proposed development or use of land is lawful and so does not need planning permission. If the Council accepts the evidence provided, it can issue a certificate of lawful use to the applicant.
11. This may happen where:

• there is already a planning permission for the use or development;
• a development is ‘permitted development’. What is deemed permitted development is set out in regulations;
• the development was unlawful, but the time limit for enforcement action has passed.

What happened

12. The information below is a summary of relevant events, and does not include every everything that happened during this period.
13. In the early 2025 Mr D’s MP contacted the Council reporting unauthorised development at a neighbouring property.
14. In early March a Council officer visited the property. They could not gain access, but noted there were 11 individual door buzzers and nine pre-paid gas meters. The officer noted some development at the property and they could not see a record of planning permission for the development. The officer updated Mr D.
15. The Council wrote to the owner of the property but did not get a response. In April the Council did manage to visit the property with a representative from the landlord who advised the property was being used as supported accommodation.
16. The Council updated the MP after the visit to advise there was some unauthorised work at the property. The officers’ informal view was:
• this development might be acceptable, but they had invited the owner to submit a planning application to test that;
• the Council was unlikely to support 11 self-contained flats at the property. But the landlord said the property had been historically arranged that way. It that was the case, that might mean the Council could not enforce as the time limit for doing so had passed. So the Council asked the landlord to apply for a lawful development certificate.
17. The landlord applied for a lawful development certificate, via an agent. The Council paused its enforcement investigation to allow time for the landlord to send it evidence it had asked to see.
18. Meanwhile Mr D complained about the lack of enforcement action. The Council’s complaint responses and later communications advised Mr D:
• about the landlord’s assertion the development was lawful, so it needed to allow the landlord to make an application about this;
• that its investigation was ongoing.
19. Mr D was dissatisfied with the Council’s response so in July 2025, he complained to the Ombudsman. In response to my enquiries the Council advised:
• initially the landlord claimed the use was lawful due to its historic use. That was something it had had to investigate further;
• the application was held to allow the landlord to provide a document it wanted to see;
• it accepted there may have been some delays in taking action, which was because of an influx in caseload and reduction of staff response times;
• it still had a live enforcement case and was reviewing its next action, which would be requesting information from the landlord.

Analysis

20. The decision whether or not to take planning enforcement action is a statutory discretion. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether a council has taken all relevant factors into account, whether it has taken account of irrelevant issues, whether its decision was properly recorded and evidenced, whether it had had regard to any relevant guidance or policies, and whether its decision was reasonable and proportionate in all of the circumstances.
21. Planning authorities usually first try to deal with breaches informally, often through negotiation with the developer/landowner. Negotiations may take time and can result in a developer/landowner making a planning application for the unauthorised development that has taken place. This allows a local planning authority to give local people an opportunity to comment on that development and then assess it against planning policies. Normally, development meeting planning policies will get planning permission, unless there are other relevant planning reasons to justify refusal.
22. Taking account of the above, my decision is there was no fault by the Council in the time period I have investigated (from the first report to the Council until July 2025, when Mr D complained to the Ombudsman). The Council’s records show it investigated the breaches of planning control. It visited the site. It considered relevant issues. It noted the property did not have planning permission for the number of self-contained flats. But, as the landlord advised its view was the property had been like that for some time, it invited it to apply for a lawful development certificate. It was for the Council to decide whether it should take formal enforcement action or, as here, decide to await the outcome of an application for planning permission.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman