Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delay and poor communication in dealing with her report of a breach of planning control. We found no fault in the Council’s enforcement investigation but it had fallen below acceptable administrative standards in communicating with Miss X. To address the avoidable distress this had caused, the Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a symbolic payment. The Council also agreed to review how it communicated with people reporting an alleged breach of planning control.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s delay and poor communication in dealing with her report of a breach of planning control near her home. Miss X said nuisance caused by the breach adversely affected her health and spoilt her enjoyment of her home. And the Council’s delay meant the nuisance continued for longer than it needed to. Miss X wanted the Council to stop the breach, apologise and make reparations.

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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council. I also considered relevant law, policy and guidance. I shared Council information with Miss X. I also gave Miss X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Planning enforcement

6. Planning permission is needed to develop land. The law defines ‘development’, which generally means carrying out operations or making a material change in the use of buildings and other land. Development without the necessary planning permission or which does not comply with conditions imposed on a planning permission, is a breach of planning control.
7. Planning enforcement is discretionary so councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all on a breach. The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says councils should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. This means councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach.
8. Where councils consider there may have been a breach of planning control, they may serve a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN). A PCN asks questions about the use and development of the land. The landowner and occupier must respond to the questions within 21 days.
9. In deciding whether to enforce a breach, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public. They should also consider whether they might grant approval if they were to receive a planning application for the unauthorised development. Informal action might include negotiating improvements or asking for a ‘retrospective’ planning application. (A retrospective planning application is made after development has taken place.) Such an application allows councils to formally consider the relevant planning issues. And, if permission is granted, to impose conditions to control and or mitigate any adverse effects of the development.
10. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) says informal action can often be the quickest and most cost effective way to deal with a breach. The PPG also says councils should usually avoid formal enforcement action if they consider a retrospective application is the appropriate way forward.
11. Where councils find formal action necessary and are satisfied it is ‘expedient’, they may issue an enforcement notice. An enforcement notice must:

• describe the alleged breach;
• tell the landowner/occupier what they must do and when to address the breach; and
• give the council’s reasons for issuing the notice.

Those served with an enforcement notice may appeal against it to the Planning Inspectorate (PINs). On appeal, the enforcement notice does not take effect until PINs decide that appeal.

The Council’s enforcement policy

12. The Council has an Enforcement Plan for planning (the Plan), which is available to read on its website. The Plan reflects relevant law and the NPPF about enforcement being discretionary, proportionate and action should be in the public interest.
13. The Plan directs the Council’s resources to cases causing greatest planning harm, which its officers assess, and so classifies reported cases as:

• Priority Level 1 breaches, which cause serious harm to the public over a wide area or irreversible harm to historic buildings, areas, or trees.
• Priority Level 2 breaches, which have a wide impact on the surrounding area and residents but do not need immediate action.
• Priority Level 3, which are cases not covered by Priority Levels 1 and 2 or are minor breaches with limited or no significant harm.

The Plan says the Council will tell people reporting a breach what Priority Level applies and why and given them the name of the planning enforcement case officer.

14. The Plan says the Council will usually try to resolve breaches through negotiation. This includes, where appropriate, giving people an opportunity to apply for retrospective planning permission.
15. The Council will take immediate formal action where necessary in the public interest and may do so where negotiations have failed. When considering formal enforcement, the Council’s lawyers will review and assess the relevant evidence and decide if action is justified given the seriousness of any planning harm. Any formal action will also be proportionate to the breach and balanced with available resources.
16. The Plan sets out when the Council will communicate with people reporting a breach. For a Priority Level 3 breach, the Council aims, for 80% of cases, to advise if it intends to take enforcement action within a 35 working day time target. (For Priority Levels 1 and 2, the respective time targets are 10 and 25 working days.) The Council will also contact people reporting a breach if it asks for a retrospective application and again on deciding the application. The Plan says the Council will usually make no other contact with the person reporting the breach.
17. The Plan says enforcement investigations can be complex and may take considerable time to resolve. And the Council will not respond to individual requests for information or updates during an investigation. But those reporting a breach will receive an update when the Council takes a significant step.

Statutory nuisance

18. Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’, which includes noise from premises or vehicles, equipment, or machinery in the street. To be a statutory nuisance, the activities must

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

19. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Council officers use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists. The law says a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot act to stop something that is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, for example, a medical condition making them unusually sensitive to noise or fumes.
20. If satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, councils must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, councils may delay issuing an abatement notice for a short period, to try to address the problem informally. An abatement notice requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. A person who receives an abatement notice has a right to appeal it in the courts. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.

What happened

21. Miss X moved home in Autumn 2024. Having seen planning information on the Council’s website, Miss X believed that part of the neighbouring building adjoining her new home (‘the Building’) was in residential use. After moving in, Miss X found the whole Building was being used for business purposes that produced noise (‘the Use’).
22. In early 2025, Miss X, through her local councillor, reported the Use as breaching planning control. The Council opened a planning enforcement case to investigate whether there had been a material change in the use of the Building without the necessary planning permission. The Council wrote to Miss X’s councillor (‘the Letter’). Further correspondence about the case took place between Miss X and a Council planning enforcement officer (PEO) named in the Letter. A Council environmental health officer (EHO) separately investigated whether noise from the Building was a statutory nuisance. The PEO and EHO were aware of each other’s investigations.
23. About a month after opening the planning enforcement case, the Council wrote to Miss X saying it was satisfied the Use needed planning permission (‘the Second Letter’). The Second Letter said the Council had advised the Building occupier to either end the Use or make a retrospective planning application. The Second Letter also signposted Miss X to the Council’s website for information about planning enforcement. It also invited Miss X to make contact if she needed any further information. And over the following three months, Miss X wrote regularly to the PEO (and the EHO) about the Use and asking questions about planning enforcement.
24. About four weeks after inviting but not receiving a retrospective application, the Council sent a PCN to the Building owner. The Council also wrote to Miss X to update her about the PCN (‘the Email’). The Council said the PCN sought information about any measures taken to control noise from the Building to help it assess whether the Use caused demonstrable planning harm.
25. Later that same month, the Council served an abatement notice on the Building occupier. The abatement notice gave the occupier 60 days to abate the noise nuisance caused by the Use. The Council’s EHO wrote to Miss X to let her know it had issued an abatement notice.
26. The Council received no response to the PCN but further contact took place between it and the Building occupier. The occupier both disputed the Use needed planning permission and discussed making a retrospective planning application. The occupier also took some steps which it said were to address noise from the Building.
27. Over the next two months, Miss X continued to contact the PEO, commenting on noise from the Use, asking questions and chasing for updates. The EHO made further visits to, and installed noise monitoring equipment in, Miss X’s home. With noise continuing to disrupt her home and wellbeing, Miss X complained to the Council.
28. It took about two months for Miss X’s complaint to complete the Council’s two-stage complaints procedure. Briefly, Miss X’s main points of complaint about the planning enforcement investigation were the Council’s poor communication and lack of action. Miss X explained how noise from the Building Use was impacting her health, home and life. Miss X asked the Council to take the case seriously and give it the necessary care and urgency. Miss X also said the Building needed soundproofing as the measures taken so far were “laughable”.
29. In response and in summary, the Council referred to the Plan, which said investigations could be lengthy and complex. The Council also pointed to the Plan saying it gave updates when there was significant progress on a case. This allowed its enforcement officers to focus on investigations rather than writing when there was nothing to update. Its PEO had updated Miss X in line with the Plan (see paragraphs 22, 23 and 24). The Council did not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in how it handled the planning enforcement case.
30. During the two months covered by the complaint correspondence, the Council’s planning enforcement team further considered the Use. They also liaised with the environmental health team about the feasibility of a noise mitigation scheme. The Council’s planners continued to find the Use acceptable in principle subject to planning conditions to mitigate noise. The Council wrote to the Building occupier again inviting a retrospective planning application. The Council also said it would consider formal enforcement action if it did not receive an application.
31. The PEO and EHO had also written to Miss X while the Council was dealing with her complaint. The PEO explained the Building occupier had disputed the Use needed planning permission and had not made a retrospective application. The Council confirmed it was now considering its next steps in line with the Plan. (This later led it to issue an enforcement notice (the EN).) The EHO told Miss X it did not have enough evidence to take court action against the Building occupier for non-compliance with the abatement notice.
32. Since complaining to us, the Building occupier appealed the EN. About two and a half months after making the appeal, the occupier quit the Building and so ended the noise producing Use. The EN appeal was not withdrawn. And, on the date of this statement, PINs had recently determined the appeal and upheld the EN.

Consideration

Introduction

33. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and our role is not to ask whether a council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at the procedures a council has followed to reach a decision. If we consider it followed those procedures correctly, we cannot question whether any resulting decision is right or wrong, regardless of how strongly a complainant may disagree with it.
34. As a publicly funded body we also must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This also means we cannot always respond to complaints in the level of detail people might want.
35. Here, it took the Council about six months, from Miss X, through a local councillor, reporting an alleged breach of planning control, to issue the EN. The Building occupier had then appealed the EN and later left the Building and so stopped the Use, which had led to Miss X’s complaint. The issues for me were whether there was evidence of avoidable delay or other fault by the Council during the six-month investigation. And whether the Council’s communication with Miss X during those six months fell below acceptable administrative standards. In addressing these issues, I considered that noise arising from the Use was a key concern for Miss X.

The Council’s planning enforcement investigation

36. The Plan refers to people reporting an alleged breach of planning control through their local councillor. Here, Miss X, after taking advice, wrote to her councillor, who then contacted the Council’s officers, which led them to open the planning enforcement case. The Council therefore first wrote to Miss X’s councillor, sending the Letter (see paragraph 22). The evidence showed the councillor passed the Letter to Miss X and further correspondence about the case took place between Miss X and the Council.
37. The Letter included the name of the PEO and provided information about planning enforcement and next steps for the Council’s investigation. The Letter also reflected the Plan in saying investigations could take some time to complete. And the Council would not normally correspond about the case unless there was an update. The Letter also invited contact if the councillor had any further information that might help its investigation. The Letter did not give or explain what Priority Level applied to the case and so was not in line with the Plan (see paragraph 13). I therefore found fault here.
38. The Council’s evidence showed its planning enforcement team had good staffing levels, but it faced high demand for their services. So, in line with the Plan, the Council prioritised cases to ensure its focus was on those causing greatest planning harm. Here, the Letter said it anticipated a site visit would take place within 20 working days. This might have meant it considered the breach reported by Miss X was a Priority Level 2 case (see paragraph 16). However, the Council, in responding to Miss X’s complaint, told us the case was Priority Level 3. Miss X made clear how noise from the Use impacted her and her home. I therefore recognised she would likely consider it should have had a higher priority. However, what Priority Level applied was a decision for the Council to make based on the PEO's professional planning judgement in applying the Plan’s guidance about Priority Levels. I had no role in arbitrating on any differing views held by the Council and Miss X about a Priority Level for the case and found no fault here.
39. As a Priority Level 3 case, the Council met the Plan time target of 35 working days in later sending Miss X the Second Letter (see paragraph 23). The Second Letter gave a ‘significant update’: the Council considered the Use needed planning permission and had invited a retrospective application. This was in line with the Plan, which also said the Council would hold further enforcement action while deciding a retrospective application.
40. However, the Second Letter clouded the Council’s position on communication. It pointed Miss X to the Council’s website for information but did not give a direct link to the relevant part of the website. This made accessing the information less likely as people would need to search for it within the website. The Second Letter also invited contact from Miss X. I recognised the Letter had explained that contact, other than updates, did not normally take place during an investigation, which reflected the Plan. But, this was inconsistent with the express contact invitation in the Second Letter, which the evidence showed Miss X accepted.
41. A few weeks later the Council sent Miss X the Email to update her about giving the Building owner 21 days to respond to a PCN (see paragraph 24). The Council did not update Miss X after 21 days. Neither did it respond to the regular emails Miss X sent over the following two months having accepted the Council’s invitation to communicate.
42. It takes time to carry out and complete planning enforcement investigations. And, here, Miss X’s case held Priority Level 3, which meant it would not be processed with the same urgency as Priority Level 1 and 2 cases. The steps taken by the Council had included applying to the Land Registry for information about the Building; a site visit; contact with the Building owner and occupier; inviting a retrospective application; and serving a PCN. Such steps were reasonably expected in dealing with a breach where the Council considered the unauthorised development was acceptable in principle. The Council also took and completed these steps within two months of opening its planning enforcement investigation. I found no avoidable delay or other fault here.
43. After the two months, the evidence showed the Building occupier had not made a retrospective application and did not consider the Use needed planning permission. The Council had also issued the abatement notice giving the Building occupier 60 days to deal with the noise nuisance (see paragraph 25). The Council told us its planning enforcement and noise nuisance investigations were separate. However, there was liaison between the PEO and EHO appointed to the case. And, when considering noise impacts from developments, council planners usually consult and are guided by the advice of their environmental health colleagues.
44. The 60 days given to comply with the abatement notice coincided with months three and four of the Council’s planning enforcement investigation. Much of Miss X’s unanswered correspondence with the Council’s PEO also took place during these third and fourth months. I would not necessarily find the Council at fault in suspending further enforcement action during the abatement notice compliance period. However, the Council did not update Miss X about the outcome of the PCN. And two months, without any substantive contact, especially given the Second Letter’s invitation, was fault.
45. Four months into the planning enforcement investigation, Miss X complained to the Council. While dealing with the complaint, the Council told Miss X it had insufficient evidence to further enforce the abatement notice. The evidence also showed the Council’s planning officers further considered the Use. They contacted the Building occupier again asking for a retrospective application otherwise the Council would consider formal enforcement action. About two weeks later, the Council decided to issue an enforcement notice. It took over a month to then issue the EN. Councils usually seek legal advice before issuing an enforcement notice, this helps ensure any notice is legally sound, properly drafted, and can withstand any appeal. Here, I found no avoidable delay by the Council in the time taken to prepare and issue the EN. The Council also wrote to Miss X to update her about issuing the EN. Overall, I found no fault here.
46. I recognised Miss X was dissatisfied with the Council’s decision not to uphold her complaint about its planning enforcement investigation. However, I found no fault with the steps and overall time taken by the Council to investigate the reported breach. This included the in-practice suspension of action during the 60-day compliance period for the abatement notice. Any works to comply with the abatement notice would help the Council decide whether noise from the Building caused demonstrable planning harm. And, so, whether formal enforcement action was expedient.
47. However, the Council’s communication with Miss X fell below acceptable administrative standards. The Council was entitled to restrict communication under the Plan. But, any limit on communication needed to be clear and consistently applied when dealing with people reporting an alleged breach of planning control. Here, the Council failed to provide a direct website link for information about planning enforcement, including access to the Plan. The Second Letter also invited correspondence from Miss X, which correspondence the Council did not effectively address for about two months. The Council ought to have responded in a timely manner during those two months having invited contact. Or, it could have applied the Plan and explained that, despite its contact invitation, it would only provide updates at significant stages in the investigation. It did neither, which added to Miss X’s frustration. It also did not update Miss X about next steps after the 21 days for responding to the PCN had passed.
48. Miss X was caused further avoidable distress by the Council’s failure to address, until its final complaint response, her misunderstanding about residential use of part of the Building. The evidence showed this was a key concern for Miss X and she was perplexed the Council continually ignored the point. Good administrative practice needed the Council, on starting its enforcement investigation, to clarify and explain why the Building was not in residential use. Overall, I found the Council at fault in not communicating clearly and effectively with Miss X in line with the Plan, which caused her injustice.

Action

49. Having found fault causing injustice, I considered our guidance on remedies. To put matters right, the Council agreed (within 30 working days of this statement) to:

• send a written apology and make a symbolic payment of £200 to Miss X in recognition of the avoidable distress and frustration caused by its poor communication during the planning enforcement investigation.

Before writing to Miss X, the Council should consider what our guidance on remedies says about making effective apologies.

50. The Council also agreed (within three months of this statement) to review its planning enforcement practice and procedure for communicating with people reporting an alleged breach of planning control to ensure they are given:

• a direct link to the planning enforcement information, including the Enforcement Plan, available on the Council’s website; and
• clear and consistent information about the level of contact they may expect to receive from the Council during a planning enforcement investigation.

51. The Council agreed to provide us with evidence it complied with the actions set out at paragraphs 49 and 50.

Back to top

Decision

52. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman