Summary: There was no fault in how the Council dealt with unauthorised development and antisocial behaviour at a site close to Mrs X’s family home. I have not investigated how the Council dealt with the original planning application, because permission was granted by the Planning Inspector on appeal.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council has dealt with planning matters and antisocial behaviour (ASB) at the site near to her family’s home. In particular, Mrs X says the Council failed to:
• Notify residents of applications and keep them informed of its actions and decisions;
• Deal with the original planning application properly, consider the residents’ objections, or deal with the appeal to the Planning Inspector properly;
• Reply fully to her Freedom of Information (FOI) request;
• Consider the discharge of planning conditions properly, and enforce non-compliance with the conditions;
• Investigate residents’ reports of antisocial behaviour, light pollution, animal welfare concerns, drainage problems, noise and harassment from the site; and
• Properly consider the impact on her when it approved a planning permission for a new layout of the site in April 2026.
2. Mrs X says that the Council’s failings have caused her distress and frustration, and means that she and her family have suffered unnecessary effects of the 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. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

5. The Planning Inspector considered the application to change the use of the site and decided to allow the appeal and grant planning permission. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the Planning Inspector’s decisions.
6. Mrs X says that the Council did not deal with the planning application properly, and about how it conducted itself in the appeal. However, ultimately the outcome of the planning application was for the Inspector to decide. This means that even if there was fault by the Council, I cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome. For this reason, I have not investigated how the Council dealt with the planning application in 2024, nor the appeal.
7. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
8. This means that I also have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her FOI request. The Information Commissioner is best placed to deal with this issue which is separable from the planning and environmental protection issues forming the main part of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mrs 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

The law and guidance

Planning

11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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)

Antisocial behaviour

15. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a range of powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB
16. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.

What happened

Planning issues

17. This is a summary of the relevant events and not a detailed account of everything that has happened.
18. Mrs X’s family live in one of a small group of dwellings in a rural area. In 2024, a number of people sited mobile homes on a nearby field, and started to excavate to level the land and to lay pipelines.
19. Local residents reported this to the Council. It visited the site and told the occupier they must apply for planning permission to use the land for residential use and to permanently site the vans. The occupiers were also using an adjoining field for horses and stabling. The occupiers submitted a retrospective planning application. The Council did not initially notify the neighbouring residents of the application, but later residents (including Mrs X) were able to submit objections for the Council to consider.
20. In the meantime, Mrs X had reported that the occupiers had installed very bright lighting that was disturbing the use of her home. The Council sent Mrs X diary sheets so that it could understand when the lighting was used and how it affected her. Mrs X returned the diary sheets, and the Council tried to arrange to visit Mrs X at home so that it could assess whether it was a statutory nuisance.
21. The Council explained to Mrs X that the planning system could control the type of outdoor lighting used. The Council could also consider whether it could take enforcement action under environmental protection laws, which is separate to planning control. But to do this, the light would have to be a statutory nuisance, and this means it would have to be prejudicial to health, or unreasonably interfering with the use and enjoyment of Mrs X’s home. The Council would need to assess the impact on Mrs X’s use of the home, but it was unable to arrange a visit with her to do this.
22. The Council refused the planning application and served planning enforcement notices in respect of the main site and field being used for horses. The occupiers appealed to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for the main site, and against the enforcement notice. In December 2024, the Inspector granted planning permission for the main site subject to conditions.
23. The Inspector dismissed the appeal against the enforcement notice. This meant the occupier could not keep the layout of the site as it was and would need to implement the planning permission, and the planning conditions attached to it.
24. The planning conditions controlled the layout of the site. Conditions also required the occupier to submit to the Council details of the materials for construction; the external lighting, fencing and access way; the arrangements for foul water and sewerage; the landscaping, and habitat management. The planning conditions say that once the Council approves these details, the occupier must implement each of the schemes within a certain time frame, or remove the mobile homes and other parts of the development.
25. The Council approved details of most of these aspects and so discharged the planning conditions. The file notes show that the Council considered the details against the requirements of the conditions and its observations from several site visits. It consulted the relevant bodies such as the Highways Authority, the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Tree Officer, Wildlife Officer and Pollution Control. It took into account their comments and ensured that the occupiers improved the proposals where needed. Mrs X raised concerns about the Council’s decisions and it explained to her why it had discharged each of the conditions. There was no fault in how the Council reached its decision to discharge the planning conditions, and so no basis for me to criticise its decisions.
26. Mrs X reported that the occupier had not implemented various aspects of the site in accordance with the details agreed by the Council when it discharged the planning conditions. The external lighting does not match the agreed plan for this; the landscaping has not been done; and there is tarmac planing on site despite that this was not allowed by the Planning Inspector. In addition, the occupier did not set out the site in accordance with the planning permission granted by the Planning Inspector. Mrs X also said the agreed foul and waste water arrangements have not been installed and she has told me that foul water has spilled onto her land. The Council says it has no record of Mrs X reporting an overflow of this kind to it.
27. By Autumn 2025, the Council had opened a new enforcement case because the layout of the site did not match the planning permission. The Council told the occupier they would have to submit a new planning application. The occupier had also laid a track and hardstanding in the neighbouring agricultural field and the Council opened another enforcement case for this and again told the occupiers to submit a separate planning application for this. The Council visited the site a number of times and raised that work was still needed to implement the work it had approved.
28. The occupier submitted a planning application for the new layout. The Council visited the site and its planning report sets out how it decided the new layout is acceptable. Mrs X was very concerned that the nearest mobile home is only one metre from the boundary with her garden, and that the occupier had not adhered to the last planning permission, nor the details approved in discharging the planning conditions.
29. The Council assessed the impact of the new site layout specifically on Mrs X’s property. It explained that the new layout meant that a larger mobile home, and two existing mobile homes would now be nearer to the boundary with Mrs X’s garden. However, the Council said that the distance between the nearest mobile home and rear of Mrs X’s house was almost double the minimum distance it would normally allow between houses. It said that the hedge along the boundary meant that neighbours would be less likely to see each other in their homes. It said that there were views of the mobile homes from the upper floor windows of Mrs X’s house, but these were at an acceptable angle, and the Council would require further planting to create screening between the site and Mrs X’s home and garden. The Council concluded that there would not be an adverse impact from overlooking, loss of privacy, overbearing or overshadowing to the occupiers of Mrs X’s home.
30. The Council acknowledged that the new layout would be similar to that the Inspector had rejected when he dealt with the appeals in 2024. However, it decided that the new layout was well considered and the impact of this could be reduced by planning conditions.
31. The Council granted planning permission for the new layout. It attached planning conditions including that the site should be laid out in accordance with the approved plan; the occupier should submit details of a revised surface water and foul drainage scheme, and of a new landscaping scheme for the Council’s approval and then implement these; the occupier should erect an acoustic barrier along the boundary; and install the external lighting strictly in line with the approved details.
32. The occupier has three months to submit these details and six months to install the lighting. These deadlines have not yet passed.
33. There was no fault in how the Council decided to grant planning permission for the new layout. It considered the application fully and took into account objections and advice from consultees. The Council has explained how it assessed the impact on Mrs X and decided that this was acceptable. There was no fault in how the Council considered the planning application.
34. Mrs X is understandably concerned that the neighbours started to use the field to live in without the required permission, and have not implemented many important aspects in accordance with the details the Council approved. However, there is no fault in the Council’s approach. It has followed government guidance on planning enforcement. The Council had to determine the planning applications made to it and it kept the enforcement case open while it did so. The Council cannot take enforcement action with regard to the landscaping, foul water and waste arrangements, and the lighting because although these may impact on Mrs X, the occupier has not yet breached the most recent planning permission in this regard.
35. I have considered whether the Council should have taken action sooner to enforce the planning conditions of the original planning permission when it agreed details, but the occupier failed to implement these.
36. The Council acknowledged that the occupier did not implement these fully and his progress was slower than expected. However, in September, it became clear that there would need to be a new planning consent because the occupier had changed the layout. Although, the occupier did not implement the details the Council agreed when it discharged the planning conditions, it was monitoring the site and working with the occupier to regularise the development. When considering enforcement action, the Council has to act proportionately. This often means using informal means first to remedy any planning breach such as giving an applicant more time to comply with conditions if they are working toward this. Overall, the Council was unlikely to take formal enforcement action before it became clear that a new planning permission was needed, and even if it had done so, it would still have had to halt this while it considered the new application.
37. The occupier has also erected a field shelter and a hardstanding in an adjoining paddock. In August 2024, the occupier submitted an application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development. This allows the Council to assess whether the proposed use of the paddock is development requiring planning permission. The occupier said they wanted to withdraw this application but did not do so formally until 2026.
38. The Council has said that it prioritised regulating the main site as this has the greatest impact on the area and neighbouring residents, and that it deemed it more effective to resolve issues on the main site before looking at the use of the paddock. The Council has explained that field shelters are common in rural areas and so are often deemed to be acceptable in planning terms. Now that the application for the certificate has been withdrawn, the Council will consider whether the use of the paddock and the work done there requires planning permission, and whether it is proportionate to take enforcement action.
39. The occupier also laid a hardcore access track for the paddock. The Council told them to stop work on this as it requires planning permission.

Reports of ASB, intimidation and harassment

40. In the summer of 2025, Mrs X reported excessive noise and disturbance from the site. She said there was persistent rowdy and inconsiderate behaviour, including races on scrambling motorbikes; her family and visitors were being questioned by occupiers of the site; and she found the behaviour intimidating. The Council told Mrs X to report ASB and intimidation to the Police. I understand that Mrs X did this and the Police decided that there was not enough evidence to proceed with a criminal investigation. The Council sent Mrs X diary sheets so that she could log incidents. As I understand it, Mrs X did not return this to the Council nor report any more antisocial behaviour in detail.
41. The Council has a general duty to tackle ASB and it works with other agencies including the Police. It is not fault for the Council to suggest that Mrs X report harassment and intimidation to the Police and to decide that within its partnership, the Police should be the lead agency in this case. However, it is important to note that the Council has powers of its own to tackle ASB including harassment and intimidation. A decision by the Police not to proceed with a criminal investigation, does not mean there is not enough evidence for the Council to take enforcement action. This is because some of the Council’s powers require a different burden of proof than a criminal investigation.
42. In addition, the Council describe this as a sensitive site, and it is clear that the occupants may potentially have a continued impact on Mrs X’s family, which may not be addressed through planning control. For these reasons, we would expect the Council to have some liaison with the Police so that it has a full picture of the Police investigation and could review whether it should take action.
43. The Council recently met with residents including Mrs X, the local councillors, its own planning and safer communities teams, and the Police. This shows that the Council is continuing to liaise with the Police about problems on the site.
44. Mrs X can apply for an ASB case review. The Council had not signposted her to this, but it is likely that Mrs X has not made the requisite number of reports of ASB to the Council (because she was referred to the Police at an early stage), and so I cannot expect the Council to have identified that Mrs X would be entitled to a review. The Council has confirmed that Mrs X can request an ASB case review now if she wishes. Overall, there is no fault by the Council.

Summary of Findings

45. I have not investigated how the Council dealt with the original planning application nor the appeal to the Inspector. This is because it was the Planning Inspector that granted the planning permission and that dealt with the appeal and the Ombudsman has no remit to investigate the actions or decisions of the Inspector.
46. I have not investigated how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s FOI request because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with this.
47. There was no fault in how the Council considered and discharged the planning conditions, nor in how it decided the most recent planning application. It considered the information submitted and consulted the relevant agencies.
48. There was no fault in how the Council considered planning enforcement action. It investigated the reports, served notices where needed, and monitored what was happening on site so that it could consider further action.
49. There was no fault in how the Council considered reports of ASB and light pollution. The Council considered the reports and has liaised with the Police. I would expect it to consider any request for an ASB review, and to consider its own ASB powers if this becomes necessary.

Back to top

Decision

50. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman