Summary: Mr X complained the Council closed an enforcement complaint before responding to all issues, delayed taking action in respect of an enforcement investigation and failed to keep him updated of progress. He also complained it did not follow the complaint process. There has been delay and drift in this case as four years after Mr X first reported breaches of planning control the matters are still not concluded causing frustration and uncertainty. A remedy is agreed including a symbolic payment and action to respond to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council closed an enforcement complaint before responding to all issues; delayed taking action in respect of an enforcement investigation and failed to keep him updated of progress. He also complained the Council did not follow the complaint process when dealing with his complaints.
2. Mr X says his grade two listed property and his residential amenity has been harmed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. 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

Enforcement

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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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)

Key facts

10. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
11. Mr X lives in a grade two listed property next door to a site that operates as a business including shops and a café. He complained to the Council in July 2022 about breaches of planning control at the neighbouring site. Mr X raised several issues including the siting of shipping containers, noise, operating hours, odours, expansion of kitchen unit, safety issues, rights of way issues, waste and untidy areas.
12. Planning enforcement and environmental health officers carried out a joint site visit on 9 August during which they met with the owner and discussed the issues. Officers referred issues to its food safety team who subsequently advised they had no concerns.
13. On 1 September, in response to a query from the enforcement officer, the planning team provided advice saying that planning permission was required. However, the Council did not write to the neighbours until 11 April 2023 advising that planning permission was required for three specific breaches of planning control including the siting of one shipping container.
14. The neighbours submitted a retrospective planning application in May 2023. The Council validated the application within a week. Mr X submitted comments on the pending retrospective planning application. The enforcement officer contacted Mr X in January 2024 advising the application was still not determined and also that they were leaving their role with the Council.
15. Mr X submitted a formal stage one complaint on 28 January 2024. He says he raised the complaint due to lack of progress in the enforcement investigation. The Council did not respond to his complaint.
16. The Council advised Mr X on 12 February 2024 that the enforcement case had been reallocated to a new officer and the retrospective planning application would be considered at the next planning committee meeting on 13 March. The council also told Mr X that the enforcement case would remain on hold until it determined the retrospective planning application.
17. The retrospective planning application was considered at the planning committee meeting on 8 May 2024 and the Council issued the decision notice on 27 June approving all elements.
18. On 12 July, the Council closed the planning enforcement case because the retrospective planning application had been approved. However, the Council opened a new case on the same day as concerns were raised during the planning committee meeting about the siting of other shipping containers. The Council sent a planning contravention notice (PCN) to the neighbours on 19 July. This was returned by the neighbour on 6 August.
19. Mr X contacted the Council on 29 August 2024. He raised issues with the delay in providing responses to the complaints he had previously submitted and for the outcome of the investigation into the planning enforcement issues he previously made. The Council responded on 6 September 2024.
20. In the response, the Council accepted it had failed to progress and respond to his previous complaints. It said there was an ongoing enforcement investigation in respect of the siting of the shipping containers and commented on the enforcement issues that were outstanding. It replied to some issues saying they were not planning matters, some were permitted development, some were civil matters, some had been considered by environmental health and that other matters should be reported to the planning enforcement team. It referred Mr X to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
21. The Council then wrote to the neighbour on 11 September advising planning permission was required for the retention of four shipping containers on the site. The Council chased the neighbour on 19 March 2025 chasing submission on a retrospective planning application. The neighbour indicated she would submit an application soon for the retention of three containers as one will be removed. The Council received the retrospective planning application on 14 July. The Council validated the application on 30 October and sent Mr X a neighbour consultation letter on 3 November advising any comments should be made by 24 November. The Council says Mr X did not submit any objections. The application was recently withdrawn.

Analysis

22. Mr X first contacted the Council reporting breaches of planning control at the neighbour’s commercial property in July 2022 and to date the enforcement investigation is not completed. While four years is a significant length of time this does not of itself indicate fault. I have therefore carefully considered the Council’s actions during this period.
23. After receiving the reports from Mr X, the Council visited the site and spoke with the neighbour. It then sought advice from planning officers who advised in September 2022 that planning permission was required. Based on the information provided, there is no evidence the Council acted on this advice until April 2023 when it told the neighbour a retrospective planning application was required for certain elements. Waiting seven months to contact the neighbour is fault. There is nothing to suggest this action could not have been taken in September 2022.
24. The Council received the retrospective planning application in May but it was not determined until a year later in May 2024. Once a planning application has been validated the council should determine it as quickly as possible and normally within eight weeks. The Council decided to hold in abeyance the investigation of the other issues raised by Mr X until it determined the retrospective application. I am satisfied this was a decision it was entitled to take. While the determination of the planning application is not part of this investigation, the time taken was excessive and added to the frustration and uncertainty experienced by Mr X.
25. After determining the retrospective planning application, the Council closed the enforcement complaint. However, it had not responded to all the issues raised by Mr X. However, I note the Council, at the same time, opened a new enforcement investigation. Therefore, I do not consider Mr X was significantly affected by any incorrect decision to close the original enforcement complaint.
26. The Council quickly served a PCN on the neighbour and by September 2024 had advised that another retrospective planning application was required for the remaining shipping containers. The neighbour did not submit an application until July 2025 and there is little evidence of action by the Council between September 2024 and March 2025. I consider the Council allowed the situation to drift and the failure to take action in this period amounts to fault again causing Mr X frustration and distress.
27. After receiving the second retrospective planning application in July 2025 it took the Council until 30 October to validate it. A planning application cannot progress until it is validated. The Council has not provided any explanation of why it took so long to validate the application. While it was validated in October 2025, to date it has not been determined. Again taking much longer than the expected timescale of eight weeks. This delay has again caused frustration and uncertainty for Mr X.
28. I have not seen evidence to show the Council has ever responded to all the issues raised by Mr X in his original communication to the Council dated July 2022. The complaint response in September 2024 cannot be considered a comprehensive response to the breaches of planning control reported by Mr X. I note it advised Mr X to report anything he believed to be a specific breach and provided a link to its website. As Mr X had clearly reported what he considered to be specific breaches of planning control in July 2022 and this complaint was about the failure of the Council to deal with these reports, I am not persuaded this was an appropriate response.
29. So the situation remains that after almost four years, the Council has still not completed its enforcement investigation and provided a comprehensive response to Mr X. While not all of this time is due to avoidable delay, a large part of it is. There are periods of inaction and drift that amount to fault.
30. Mr X also complains the Council failed to follow its complaint procedure. The information provided shows that no stage one response was provided. This is fault and put Mr X to avoidable time and trouble in having to pursue his complaint further including to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Action

31. To remedy the fault identified in this case the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:
• Apologise to Mr X for the fault identified. 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;
• Make Mr X a symbolic payment of £300 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the delay in responding to his reports of breaches of planning control;
• Write to Mr X setting out its response to all the breaches of planning control raised by Mr X including consideration of the heritage impact as Mr X’s property is a listed building. If any issues are still held in abeyance, provide details of when it expects to be able to respond and send monthly updates until all items have been considered; and
• The Council should identify the reasons for the delays in this case and set out a plan to address this with timescales for action. It should then update the Ombudsman with details.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman