Summary: We found the Council failed to properly consider planning enforcement reports Mr X made. We recommended the Council apologised to Mr X, explained its current position an updated him on any action it proposed to take.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that:
1. The Council failed to properly investigate and respond to concerns he raised about the change of use and change of operating hours of a business adjacent to his home.
2. The Council failed to properly investigate and respond to his report that the business adjacent to his home had placed a shipping container, close to his home without planning permission, in a conservation area.

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 recommend 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 X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X 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

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) pre August 2026

6. Paragraph 60 of the NPPF stated that effective planning enforcement is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system. It noted that enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) post August 2026

7. Paragraph DM8 1 highlights that when local authorities are considering enforcement action, they should take account of their local enforcement plan, the impact of the breach of planning control and the extent to which the breach would otherwise be acceptable (had planning permission been sought for it).
8. Separate government guidance ‘Enforcement and post permission matters’ reiterates the approach to be taken. It notes that effective enforcement is important to:

• Tackle breaches of planning control which would otherwise have an unacceptable impact on the area.
• Maintain the integrity of the decision-making process.
• Help ensure public acceptance of the decision-making process is maintained.

9. The guidance notes that local authorities have a range of potential powers should they identify a breach of planning control. It reiterates that Local Authorities have discretion to decide what action to take and they are expected to act proportionately. In deciding on what action to take they should have regard to national and local planning policy and any other material considerations.

Leeds Enforcement Plan for Planning

10. The Council’s enforcement plan states once a report has been made, the service will send an acknowledgement letter. The service will confirm the priority given and this will determine the timescales for taking action. The Council categorises reports as High, Medium or Low priority. The stated timescales are:

11. Once an investigation is ongoing, the plan states that, for High and Medium priority cases it will provide updates on significant, key developments. e.g. confirming a breach of planning control, formal action being taken, or a request being made for a retrospective planning application. It is unlikely to provide updates in low-priority cases. The plan notes that Medium Priority cases include unauthorised work, already completed, in a conservation area.
12. The plan notes that they aim to resolve breaches as soon as possible, but some cases may be complex and take considerable time to resolve.
13. The Council states that when it identifies a breach of planning control its action will depend on the seriousness of the breach, the harm being caused and other issues and it is possible the Council may decide not to take formal action.
14. The plan states that citizens have the right to make a formal complaint through its corporate complaints process. However, the complaints process will only look to ensure that the correct processes and polices have been followed. Complaints will not be accepted about an enforcement decision itself or the outcome of the investigation, only about the way in which the case was managed.

What Happened

15. Mr X lives in the Council’s area. His garden backs onto a site which is used by several local businesses. His house, the garden and some of the site behind his property falls within a conservation area.
16. In May 2025 Mr X reported to a local councillor that one of the businesses had placed a shipping container on the site. He noted the shipping container was in a conservation area, and as such, he believed it required planning permission which had not been obtained. He also reported that the business concerned had changed from a motor repair business operating during the daytime, to a vehicle recovery business using large recovery vehicles and operating 24/7. He questioned whether the changes to the business required planning permission.
17. The councillor told Mr X that the enforcement team had opened a case. The Council recorded this action on 12 June. The councillor warned Mr X that due to the pressure of limited staff and resources it may take some time to resolve.
18. The enforcement team visited the site towards the end of June 2025. In early July a planning enforcement officer provided a response via the councillor. It stated there were many uses and various businesses on the site. The enforcement team considered the use of the site by the business in question was ancillary to the main use, so, in the officer’s opinion, the Council had no control over it. He noted the vehicle recovery business was operating previously.
19. On the issue of the shipping container, the officer stated it was not development as it was not fixed to the ground and had no services connected to it. It would not represent a change of use as its use was ancillary to the existing business, so he believed they were stuck with it. He suggested that any noise and disturbance issues could be dealt with by colleagues in Environmental Health.
20. Mr X queried the Council’s response. He noted the shipping container was new to the site and based on what he had read, a planning application was needed for the commercial use of containers in a conservation area. He noted the other businesses on the site, while noisy, had not changed. However, the vehicle recovery business had changed and the use 24/7 was now an issue.
21. The Council did not reach a decision on Mr X’s enforcement complaint but it kept its enforcement file open. In July 2025 the business owner told the Council he intended to store the larger car transporter lorries on a new site, but the date for this was unknown.
22. In July, after some further correspondence, a councillor clarified the Council’s position for Mr X because he wanted to contact the Ombudsman. He stated the Council would not take action about the vehicle recovery business because its use was ancillary to the existing use of the site, which included a garage. The Council also noted the owner’s intention to move the larger recovery lorries off site. On the issue of the shipping container, he stated, in planning law, the container was regarded as temporary and the planning enforcement team considered it did not need planning permission. Although the councillor set this out to Mr X, this was not a formal decision by the enforcement team.
23. In September an enforcement officer carried out a further visit and noted the site remained unchanged. He sought an update from the site owner.
24. In late September Mr X made a further report about the same issues on the Council’s website. The Council wrote to Mr X in mid-October. The Council’s response mirrored its comments via the councillor in July 2025. It added that the business owner expected to be able to move the recovery lorries to another site within a month.
25. The Council provided details of its subsequent actions. No action had been taken between October 2025 and January 2026 when the Council carried out a further site visit.
26. In February 2026 the Council asked the site owner and Mr X for information and in June the Council asked for an update from the site owner.
27. We asked the Council to explain its position and clarify what consideration it had given to the 24/7 operating hours representing a change of use. The Council stated no evidence had been provided to demonstrate a vehicle recovery business was operating 24/7. However, this was subject to an open enforcement investigation.
28. On 4 August 2026, at the same time as the Council responded to our enquiries, the Council issued a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) to the site owner seeking information. It also told us it had also written to the site owner to tell them to cease ‘the unauthorised use of the site’ and restore the site to its previous condition, or submit a planning application.
29. We also asked the Council to tell us if it considered the placement of a shipping container on the site, in a conservation area, required planning permission. The Council told us, because the enforcement investigation was open, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcome.

What should have happened

30. When the Council receives a report of a potential breach of planning rules, it should take reasonable steps to investigate, in accordance with its local enforcement plan, to establish if there has been a breach of planning control. If it establishes a breach, it should assess the level of harm and decide what action it would be proportionate to take in response.
31. The Council has a local enforcement plan that sets out the timescales within which it should act on reports. This is influenced by what priority is applied to it. While the Council acknowledged Mr X’s initial report via the councillor (and his later report online), I have seen no evidence that the Council communicated to Mr X what priority was applicable. This meant it was not clear when he should expect the Council’s decision. It seems likely that, due to its position in a conservation area, his report should have been categorised as medium priority. This required the Council to notify Mr X of any enforcement activity it intended to take within 25 working days (by 17 July). The longest timescale set out in the Council’s enforcement plan for low-priority cases required notification of enforcement activity in 35 working days (by 31 July).
32. In Mr X’s case the Council gave an update in early July. I found this was within the timescales the Council set out for providing and update on enforcement action. At that time the officer expressed a view on both elements of Mr X’s complaint. He considered the Council had no planning control over the recovery business. He stated the container was not development, its use was ancillary to the business on site and it would not itself constitute a change of use. The officer indicated he believed it had to be accepted and stated he had suggested to the site owner that it was painted.
33. In principle, these were decisions the Council was entitled to reach. Whether change of use occurs and whether a shipping container requires planning permission will depend on multiple factors and the context of the situation.
34. However, the view put forward by the Council did not comment on Mr X’s view that the use of the site had been intensified because its use was now operating 24/7, nor explain how the placement of the container in a conservation area was relevant to the decision. Mr X made these points to the Council and they were not addressed. These were significant factors. The failure to explain how these factors affected its decision was fault.
35. So, while we found the Council responded to give an initial view within a reasonable timescale, the Council did not evidence it had properly considered key points Mr X had made when providing that view. The Council did not elaborate on these issues when it had the opportunity to do so in October 2025 when responding to Mr X’s further report. This was also fault.
36. Our enquiries in July 2026 asked the Council to clarify its up to date position about the reported extension of operating hours and the relevance of the container being placed in a conservation area. It did not do this, stating that would not be appropriate because its enforcement investigation was still open.
37. Mr X raised his concerns in May 2025. Based on the evidence we have seen, little has changed at the site in the meantime so it is difficult to see why a decision could not have been reached on the reports sooner. We found the Council had allowed the enforcement investigation to drift after providing its initial view and there were periods of avoidable delay in taking action at various points. We found the delay in reaching a decision also constituted fault.
38. We note that, at around the same time the Council responded to our enquiries it wrote to the site owner suggesting that the Council now believed there was a breach of planning control. It also sent a PCN. It is not clear how it arrived at this view or specifically what the Council considers to be unauthorised use at the site, or how it took account of the conservation area. This has not been explained.

Back to top

Action

39. Within four weeks of our final decision:
40. Provide Mr X with a written apology for not properly explaining its position on his planning enforcement report and for allowing the investigation to drift without reaching a conclusion. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
41. Provide a written explanation to Mr X of its current position on the enforcement reports he made. This should explain the Council’s view on the need for planning permission for the shipping container (referencing the relevance of the conservation area) and whether the Council considers expanded hours of operation at the site constitute a breach of planning control. The Council should also update Mr X on any enforcement action it considers to be appropriate.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

43. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman