Summary: Mr C complained the Council had failed to take enough action against breaches of planning control and conditions by a business near his home. We found some fault in the process the Council followed to consider enforcement powers available to it initially, which is corrected in is final complaint response. It also wrongly informed him it had sought legal advice. The Council will apologise to Mr C to acknowledge the impact its faults had.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr C, complained the Council failed to act on serious and ongoing breaches of planning control by a business on a site near his home. He said this includes changes to the use of the business and in breaches of approved planning conditions.
2. Mr C also said it had failed to act on commercial waste concerns, damage of private property, and intimidation by persons involved with the business.
3. Mr C said, as a result, he has experienced distress and uncertainty, risk to his safety, and an impact on his residential amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

7. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
8. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about action taken by or on behalf of any local policing body in connection with the investigation or prevention of crime. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, Section 26, paragraph 2 as amended)
9. 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)
10. 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

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr C 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

Planning permission

13. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
14. Material planning considerations may include:
• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.
15. Material planning considerations do not include:
• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.
16. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
17. 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’.
18. 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.

Enforcement

19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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)
23. Councils have a range of options for formal planning enforcement action available to them, including:
• Planning Contravention Notices – to require information from the owner or occupier of land and provide an opportunity to rectify the alleged breach.
• Planning Enforcement Notices – where there is evidence of a breach, to identify it and require action to remedy it.
• Stop Notices - to prohibit activities without further delay where it is essential to safeguard the public. Such notices cannot be served after a planning enforcement notice has taken effect.
• Breach of Condition Notices – to require compliance with the terms of planning conditions already decided necessary for approval of the development.
• Injunctions – by application to the High Court or County Court, the Council may seek an order to restrain an actual or expected breach of planning control. An injunction can be applied for in addition to any of the above powers.
24. However, 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.

What happened

25. Mr C lives in a residential area. He accesses his home from the front but also has access through a private accessway at the rear of his property.
26. In 2024 the Council approved a planning application from a neighbour. This was for the installation of a shipping container to be for office use. The approval was subject to conditions which included the materials to be used, restrictions to operating hours, and drainage to protect the appearance and residential amenity.
27. Shortly after a business started operating from the site.
28. Mr C and other residents told the Council about their planning enforcement concerns. These included the business, or individuals involved with the business, were:
• acting in breach of the permitted use of the business, and conditions regarding the container and opening hours;
• regularly blocking the private accessway to his property; and
• acting in an intimidating manner against him. He said this later became damaging his private property.
29. The Council opened a planning enforcement case and inspected the site in Summer and Autumn 2024. It found the business was in breach of planning control relating to the materials used, business hours, and the type of business conducted.
30. The Council informed Mr C of its findings and asked him to complete diary sheets. It also explained parking of vehicles on private land was not something it could address, but any unauthorised parking on the public highway could be reported to it.
31. The Council arranged a joint visit between its enforcement and nuisance officers in October 2024. It subsequently served an enforcement notice on the business relating to the identified breaches of planning control.
32. In late 2024 the business appealed the Council’s enforcement notice to the Planning Inspector, which was shortly before the notice became effective. This included an application to run the existing business. The Council shared its objections to the proposal to the Planning Inspector.
33. In early 2025 the Planning Inspector set a start date for the appeal. The Council shared its case soon after. However, the case has still not been considered by the Inspector.
34. Since Summer 2025 the Council has carried out several visits to the site. These were in and outside the permitted office hours to observe the activities taking place. It found the identified breaches were ongoing, but it did not find health and safety issues with substances stored on the site.

Mr C’s complaint

35. Mr C complained to the Council about its handling of his enforcement concerns. He wanted it to take more action due to the impact the neighbouring business had on him and other residents. Below are the key points of his complaint and the Council’s responses which did not uphold his complaint:
• The unauthorised business use, container not meeting the approved standards, and vehicles attending at all hours including during nighttime. Mr C wanted the Council to serve a stop notice or an injunction.

The Council explained it had inspected the site on several occasions, which included unannounced visits at unsociable hours. It initially said it cannot take any action as these relate to the enforcement notice which is under appeal to the Planning Inspector and had become effective. Its final complaint response corrected this, as the notice had not taken effect due to the appeal. It found it was not proportionate or expedient to service a stop notice or seek an injunction.

• parked vehicles blocking the private accessway and damage to private property.

The Council acknowledged Mr C’s frustrations but explained it has no powers to take action on the private land, and alleged damage to private property is a civil concern between the individuals involved. However, any parking on public land could be reported for it to consider.

• Storage of commercial waste or hazardous substances, display of an advertisement board, and removal of a wall.

The Council explained its Health and Safety team had not found evidence of some alleged substances and it was otherwise satisfied substances was stored appropriately. It also said the was advertisement permissible due to its limited size and removal of the wall did not require permission.

• Threats, intimidation and damage by the business or individuals associated with the business.

The Council explained such issues should be reported to the police as these were potentially criminal matters. It also referred some of Mr C’s concerns directly to the Police.

• Consultation letters for the Planning Inspector appeal had not been received by Mr C and some neighbours.

The Council explained it had sent out consultation letters to neighbours in the area. Responses were received from several neighbours and the business.

36. Mr C asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. He said the Council had failed to properly consider, investigate, and action the reported breaches of planning control and behaviour by the neighbouring business.
37. Mr C has continued to report breaches of planning control by the business, vehicles blocking his private accessway, and intimidating behaviour by individuals associated with the business to the Council. However, the Council has not changed its view.
38. Mr C said he submitted an information request to the Council. In its response it confirmed it had not sought legal advice as it had told him. It acknowledged its responses regarding this was misleading and apologised.

Analysis and findings

The planning approval

39. I understand Mr C disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the business in 2024. There is no evidence to suggest the Council has not followed a proper planning process to reach its view and approve the planning application subject to the relevant conditions.
40. Mr C’s concerns the Council’s approval impacted in his private access rights was not a material planning consideration. Nor were any previous actions by the business at different sites relevant for its planning decision. I have therefore not found fault in how the Council considered the planning approval.

The Council’s handling of planning enforcement

41. I have found some fault by the Council in how it considered Mr C’s reported planning control breaches. This includes it explanations why it would not take further action until the appeal to the Planning Inspector has been decided. In reaching my view I was conscious, the Council:
• logged Mr C’s enforcement concerns and inspected the site on several occasions to confirm the breaches which had taken place. Such visits included enforcement officers and other relevant officers within and outside business hours;
• identified planning control breaches relating to the business use and breach of conditions. It communicated with the business owner to obtain compliance with its identified breaches, and served an enforcement notice without unnecessary delay when no progress was made;
• told Mr C its views on each reported concern. It explained it could not take further enforcement action against the identified breaches of planning control and conditions. This was because its notice had come into effect and was under appeal to the Planning Inspector. This was fault as the appeal had been lodged before the notice became effective, a stop notice was therefore an option for the Council to consider. The Council did consider an injunction would not be appropriate or likely to be granted due to the ongoing appeal;
• corrected its flawed understanding of the powers available to it in its final complaint response. This found the enforcement notice had not taken effect. However, it found it was not proportionate or expedient to use its powers for a stop notice or an injunction based on the circumstances of the case; and
• informed Mr C about the concerns it could not or would not take action against. This included criminal issues such as intimidation or harassment, and damage to private property or obstructions to the private accessway. This was because such matters are best considered by the police or are civil matters for the courts.
42. I found the Council’s fault caused Mr C some frustration and uncertainty. I am satisfied an apology is appropriate to remedy the impact this had. This is because it corrected its flawed understanding and properly considered enforcement powers available to it in its final complaint response, which did not lead to a different outcome. This was subsequently a decision it was entitled to make.
43. I acknowledge Mr C and other residents have clearly experienced an impact on their amenity as a result of the neighbouring business’ activities. However, I have not found the fault identified by the Council was the cause.

Legal advice

44. The Council told Mr C on a few occasions it had sought legal advice to reach its views. However, following its response to his information request, it acknowledged this was incorrect and misleading. This was because there was no evidence it had sought legal advice. This was fault.
45. However, the Council was not under a duty to obtain legal advice as part of the enforcement process. While council’s often do so to ensure its actions are proportionate and legally defensible, it is entirely at the discretion of a council. As I have not found fault or incorrect information in the decision-making process, I am satisfied the Council’s apology to Mr C for the incorrect and misleading information about the legal advice was appropriate to remedy the frustration this caused him.

Back to top

Action

46. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr C, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mr C to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty its faults caused him.

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

Back to top

Decision

47. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault on the substantial matters complained about. However, the Council was at fault for incorrectly informing Mr C about powers available to it and it had sought legal advice. It will apologise to acknowledge was the frustration this caused him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman