Summary: Mrs D complained about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement notice and other planning control concerns for a neighbouring development. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its views, it therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. However, it failed to provide updates as agreed and caused a short delay in the process which was a service failure. The Council will apologise to Mrs D to acknowledge the impact this had on her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs D, complained about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement for a development near her home. She said it had:
• failed to secure compliance with approved plans and its enforcement notice since 2021;
• failed to take action against further breaches of planning control from Autumn 2024 and serve a notice for the developer to remedy the condition of the site. She also said it wrongly decided it was not proportionate to take enforcement action;
• caused delay in the enforcement process; and
• failed to provide her with monthly updates as it had previously agreed to.
2. Mrs D said, as a result, she experienced distress and uncertainty. She also said she had costs for court action against the developer and had been unable to enjoy her garden due to the impact of the neighbouring development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
4. 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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the Council’s handling of planning enforcement for Mrs D’s reported breaches of planning control, which were set out:
• in its 2021 planning enforcement notice. My investigation started from December 2023. While this is late, as it relates to a matter which occurred more than 12 months before it was brought to our attention, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion. I have not investigated the matter prior to December 2023 as there was nothing the Council could do while the Planning Inspector was involved; and
• in Mrs D’s enforcement report in October 2024 about unauthorised fixtures and fittings on the development, up to Summer 2025 when it shared its decision with her.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs D and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs D 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

Planning enforcement

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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)
13. 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.
• 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.
14. In addition, local planning authorities have the power to serve notice on an owner or occupier to clean up land or buildings that adversely affects the area’s amenity. This is in circumstances where the authority decides this is appropriate having considered the condition of the land. (Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 215)
15. 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.

The Council’s Enforcement Policy and plan

16. The Council’s enforcement policy sets out how the Council will consider and investigate reports of planning control issues. It also warns that in cases where the Council serves a planning enforcement notice, significant delays are likely if these are appealed to the Planning Inspector.
17. The Council’s enforcement plan sets out how it will prioritise cases. This includes considering the likely harm caused and the degree of departure from its development plan policies. It aims to investigate cases categorised a priority 1 within 1 day, and lower priority cases within 10 working days.
18. Where the Council has served and enforcement notice, which has been upheld following appeal to the Planning Inspector, an offence occurs if the notice is not complied with. It may seek to resolve such matters through court action. However, it may give grace period to a developer, if the developer is clearly making serious efforts to resolve matters, or there has been delayed due to unforeseen reasons such as weather.

Losing Control: Complaints about Planning Enforcement

19. We issued our report in February 2026 about delays in the planning enforcement process where we found failures to progress enforcement cases may indicate systemic issues.
20. We expect councils to have processes in place to prioritise and progress workloads. We will normally find delay by a council where there is no progress on an enforcement case for a period of three-months or more. This may be due to high numbers of enforcement reports, limited resources, and issues retaining or recruiting staff. We acknowledge the challenges councils may experience, however, such delays amount to a service failure.

What happened

21. Mrs D’s neighbour has planning permission for work to and extension of a residential development. In 2021 the Council served an enforcement notice against the developer as unauthorised works and excavations had taken place. It also served a Section 215 notice to remedy the condition of the land.
22. The developer appealed the Council’s enforcement notice to the Planning Inspector. The appeal was decided in 2023 where the Inspector found the developer was in breach and it considered nine months for the remedial works to be appropriate.
23. Mrs D also took private court action to obtain and injunction which prevented the developer from doing certain works at the site.
24. Mrs D had a previous complaint against the Council regarding enforcement action at the site. The Council agreed to provide her with regular monthly updates.

Key events of the enforcement notice

25. In late 2023, shortly before the Planning Inspectors deadline to complete the remedial works expired, the Council inspected the site. It warned the developer he was at risk of failing to meet the deadline. It agreed a three-month extension for the developer to submit a method statement for the works and seek professional advice.
26. In Spring 2024 the Council remained in contact with the developer and it chased for updates and the requested information.
27. In Summer 2024 the Council again chased the developer, who informed the Council the property had been flooded which meant certain works could not be completed until it had dried out. Photo evidence was provided to the Council.
28. In Autumn 2024 the Council inspected the site. It observed the impact of the flooding and works by the developer to prevent flooding. It told the developer to carry out the required works as the area was now dry. The Council decided to continue to work with the developer, rather than taking further action at the time. It acknowledged the developer’s concerns about Mrs D’s injunction. However, it and the Planning Inspector had found this did not stop the developer from adhering to the works required under the enforcement notice.
29. In late 2024 the Council served a formal notice to the developer which gave him four months to obtain advice, provide the required method statement, and complete the works in its enforcement notice.
30. Mrs D chased the Council in June 2025 for an update. The Council subsequently arranged for a visit to the site. As there had not been progress and it had not received the information it had requested, the Council informed the developer it would consider enforcement proceedings.
31. The Council passed the case to its legal team in July 2025. A court case was started in Autumn 2025.

Key events of Mrs D further report of breach of planning control

32. In October 2024 Mrs D told the Council about new planning control issues with the development. This related to some fittings and materials used. The Council acknowledged her report. It asked the developer to adhere to the approved plans, or to submit a variation application for it to consider.
33. The developer subsequently submitted a non-material amendment application. The Council refused the application and informed the developer this was the incorrect type of application. However, no further application was received from the developer.
34. In June 2025 Mrs D chased the Council for an update. She also told the Council the state of the site was unacceptable, and a section 215 notice should be served to remedy the condition of the site.
35. The Council subsequently arranged for a visit to the site. It found the works did amount to a breach of planning control, but if the correct application had been submitted it was likely to have been approved. It was therefore not proportionate or expedient to take enforcement action against the identified breach. It also found the state of the site did not justify a section 215 notice, and informed Mrs D.

Mrs D’s complaint

36. Mrs D complained to the Council. She said it had:
• failed to secure compliance with approved plans and its enforcement notice since 2021. She said it was its legal duty to do so;
• failed to take action against further breaches of planning control from Autumn 2024 and to serve a notice for the developer to remedy the condition of the site. She also said it wrongly decided it was not proportionate to take enforcement action;
• caused delay in the enforcement process; and
• failed to provide her with monthly updates as it had previously agreed to.
37. In response the Council did not find fault in how it had handled the enforcement process for the development, nor that it had caused delays. It explained:
• delays were mainly due to the Planning Inspector and the flooding of the development site. It had made attempts to make the developer comply with its planning enforcement notice, but acknowledged this had not been successful and it had since passed the case to its legal team;
• it had found it was not expedient to take further action against the unauthorised fixtures and materials as reported by Mrs D in Autumn 2024;
• it acknowledged the site remained cluttered, but it was not satisfied this justified a Section 215 notice to be issued in this instance. It had asked the developer to improve the site, but he was under no obligation to do so.
38. Mrs D escalated her complaint with the Council. She was not satisfied with the reasons it had provided. She also said it had failed to provide her with regular updates as it had previously promised.
39. In its final response the Council did not change its view regarding how it had handled her planning enforcement concerns. However, it did accept it had failed to communicate with her as agreed. This was because it had not provided her with regular updates. It apologised and said it would do so going forward.
40. Mrs D asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint as she remains dissatisfied with the time it has taken to properly address her concerns, and she disagrees with its decisions to not take action against the unauthorised fixtures and materials and the site condition.
41. In response to my enquiries the Council shared information about how it had inspected and investigated the planning enforcement concerns. It also said it put the case on hold between January to June 2025 as it was prioritising other enforcement cases.

Analysis and findings

The Council’s handling of the enforcement notice

42. I have considered whether there was fault or delay in the process the Council followed to decide and action its planning enforcement notice.
43. While the Council has been under a duty to act on its notice, as upheld by the Planning Inspector, since December 2023, it was the Council’s decision how to seek compliance and when to start legal action.
44. I have not found fault in the process the Council followed. Nor did I find the Council caused unnecessary delay for most of the period up to Summer 2025. This is because the Council was entitled to decide to work with the developer after it had:
• regard to his promises, intentions, and personal circumstances; and
• considered circumstances outside the developers control such as the flooding, and the steps taken by the developer to prevent this going forward; and
• inspected and were satisfied events as alleged by the developer did occur.
45. Without fault or unnecessary delay in the process, I cannot criticise the Council’s decisions. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make.
46. However, from early 2025 to Summer 2025 the Council confirmed the case was on hold. No considerations or actions took place due to it prioritising other cases, and it was first after Mrs D chased the Council, it again started to consider the case. While it was up to the Council to prioritise enforcement cases, and I acknowledge it had a high workload, I found it caused a short delay of around three months which amounted to a service failure.
47. I found this caused Mrs D some frustration. However, the Council has since passed the case to its legal team and court proceedings has been started without further delay. I am therefore satisfied an apology for the limited delay is appropriate.

The Council’s handling of further planning control concerns

48. Mrs D reported her further planning control concerns to the Council about materials and fitting used by the developer in Autumn 2024. I have not found fault in how the Council initially considered and actioned her concerns with the developer.
49. However, this planning enforcement concern was also not progressed from early 2025 to Summer 2025. Nor did the Council chase the developer for a variation application, and it first acted again when Mrs D chased it for an update. I found this was also a service failure which resulted in a relatively short delay, which caused Mrs D some frustration and uncertainty.
50. However, the Council subsequently found it was not proportionate or expedient to take further action against the identified breaches. This was a decision it was entitled to make, as it had properly considered the approved plans, Mrs D’s concerns, and what development had taken place. I am therefore satisfied an apology to acknowledge the short delay to consider and respond to her concerns is appropriate to remedy the impact its delay caused her.
51. I have not made any service improvement recommendations on this case. This is because the Council’s overall handling of the enforcement process was in line with its Policy, and the identified delay it was responsible for was limited.

Communication with Ms D

52. The Council acknowledged it had failed to provide Mrs D with regular updates about the development. This is not something a council is normally required to do. However, it had previously agreed to do so for Mrs D. This was therefore fault.
53. I am satisfied the Council’s apology to Mrs D was appropriate to remedy the frustration and uncertainty she experienced as a result. It has since assured her it will provide its updates as previously promised.

Back to top

Action

54. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mrs D, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mrs D to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty the short delay in its planning enforcement process caused her.

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.

55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

56. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council on the substantive parts of the complaint. However, it caused a service failure due to a relatively short delay in its handling of planning enforcement. Mrs D experienced some frustration and uncertainty as a result. The Council will apologise to remedy the impact this had on her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman