Summary: Mr F complained the Council caused delays to act on and respond to his planning enforcement concerns for a site near his home. He also said it had failed to take enough action. We found fault by the Council for causing delays in the enforcement process and its communication with Mr F. However, we found no fault in the process it followed to reach its decisions, and some parts of Mr F’s complaint was late. The Council will apologise to acknowledge the impact its faults had on him and carry out a service improvement recommendation.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained about the Council’s handling of his planning and enforcement concerns about a development near to his home. He said it had:
• wrongly approved a planning application in 2022 without properly considering the development and impact on habitats of wildlife;
• failed to take appropriate enforcement action against unauthorised use, works, use of a bridleway, and impact on the environment and protected species which had since taken place; and
• communicated poorly and caused delays.
2. Mr F said, as a result, he has experienced distress and uncertainty, and a loss of amenity. He also said there has been impact on wildlife and habitats.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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

8. I have investigated Mr F’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning enforcement concerns from January 2024 until July 2025 when the Council provided its final complaint response.
9. I have not investigated Mr F’s concerns about:
• the Council’s approval of the planning application in 2022. Nor its handling of his planning enforcement concerns prior to January 2024. This is because this part of his complaint is late. However, I have had regard to these for context; or
• the Council’s handling of his planning and enforcement concerns for the site from August 2025. This is because this was after the Council’s final complaint response, and it included additional planning control breaches. Such concerns are therefore new, and the Council should have the opportunity to respond or address the concerns.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr F and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr F 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 permission

12. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
13. Material planning considerations may include:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

14. Material planning considerations do not include:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

15. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Planning Use Classes

16. 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’.
17. 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.

Certificate of lawfulness

18. It is possible to seek formal confirmation from councils that an existing or proposed development or use of land is lawful and so does not need planning permission. If the Council accepts the evidence provided, it can issue a certificate of lawful use to the applicant.
19. This may happen where:

• the Council has already granted planning permission for the use or development;
• a development is ‘permitted development’ and so deemed acceptable because it complies with limits in regulations; or
• the development was unlawful, but the time limit for enforcement actions has now passed.

Enforcement

20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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)
24. 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.

Conservation Areas and wildlife

25. Councils have the power to create Conservation Areas. These are areas considered to have special architectural or historic interest that should be preserved or enhanced.
26. Councils are under a duty to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing Conservation Areas when making decisions on planning applications. Even if a proposed development is outside a Conservation Area, councils may take account of the impact it will have upon the Conservation Area itself.
27. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1991 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2018 sets out local authorities’ duties to protect biodiversity and wildlife. This includes sites of special scientific interest.
28. A grant of planning permission can be permitted if a local planning authority considers that any adverse effects on a protected site or species can be limited by conditions.
29. An opinion from an appropriate nature conservation body may be required for some planning applications, such as Natural England. A local planning authority must consider the advice received before reaching a view whether to grant planning permission. However, standing advice has been published for some protected species which, if followed, do therefore not require further advice or licence from Natural England.

Council’s Planning Enforcement policy

30. The Council’s policy sets out how it intends to register and investigate the planning control concerns it receives. It does not set out timescales for how long its process may take and says some complicated or serious breaches may take a significant amount of time to progress.
31. It aims to keep individuals informed about progress but will not provide regular updates. However, it will provide updates when outcomes or decisions are made.

Bridleways

32. The Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Highways Act 1980 makes it a criminal offence to drive a vehicle on, disturb the surface of, or obstruct a bridleway without lawful authority.

Background

33. Mr F lives in a rural area with surrounding countryside. There is an access road to his property, which was used by Mr F and owners of some nearby land (the site) near his property.
34. The site had been subject to planning refusals by the Council, and previous enforcement action for authorised change of use of the site by siting a caravan. An enforcement notice had been issued.
35. The owner of the site applied for planning permission for an eco-development. The access was to be through the shared access along Mr F’s property. The Council approved the application in 2022, which was subject to conditions including landscaping and following an Arboricultural assessment.
36. During 2023 Mr F told the Council about breaches of planning control on the site. This included:
• the site was used as a campsite, and a caravan had been placed on the land;
• occupation of the caravan or renting out of the caravan;
• gates had been installed at the access to a bridleway from a highway, including vegetation and hedgerow had been removed. He also said the owner had done works to surface the bridleway and commenced vehicular use of it;
37. The Council opened a planning enforcement case in 2023 to consider the concerns it had received.

What happened

38. In early 2024 the Council spoke with Mr F. It received his updated concerns about the development and activities on the site. He also said he had become the owner of the access road and the site therefore did not have any authorised access. The Council explained it was in discussions with the owner and had sought information. However, the enforcement process would take time and may be resolved through negotiation.
39. Over the following months, Mr F continued to share concerns about the site. This included the use of, and works to, a bridleway and differences in the location of the scheme in comparison to the approved scheme. The Council’s Public’s Right of Way team discussed concerns with Mr F.
40. The Council told Mr F it had reduced capacity to deal with enforcement concerns due to limited staffing and officer absence. In April 2024 it assigned an agency enforcement officer to the case. Site visits and discussions with the owner of the site subsequently to place. The owner told the Council he would submit applications for planning approvals to regularise works.
41. In Summer 2024 the allocated agency officer left the Council. It subsequently allocated another officer, and a further site visit took place. The Council remained of the view the owner should submit a planning application for the site which would include the access and appropriate considerations of the environment.
42. The Council continued to experience staffing challenges due to absences in its enforcement team. In late Autumn 2024 the officer allocated to the case also left the Council.
43. In late 2024 the owner submitted an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) for the caravan use on the site.
44. In early 2025 Mr F continued to share concerns with the Council about the development.

Mr F’s complaint

45. In Spring 2025 he set out a detailed summary of his concerns, and complained to the Council about its handling of his concerns soon after. The key points were:
• the Council had caused delays in the enforcement process and failed to provide meaningful responses to him for nearly a year;
• the Council should refuse the owner’s CLEUD application. He said the owner had not shown evidence of lawful use to support the application, and previous enforcement action had been taken for similar use;
• the owner had unlawfully commenced use and works to a public bridleway, including works to the highway access and removal of vegetation. He wanted the Council to properly investigate the planning control breaches and his concerns about highway safety. He also said this did not form part of the CLEUD application;
• the 2022 planning approval could not be delivered as the owner no longer had access rights to the site or land for parking. He also said the works commenced on the site was not in the same location as the approved plans. He wanted the Council to issue a stop notice, consider enforcement action, or require the owner to submit a new planning application. He also wanted appropriate evaluation of the environmental impact of the activities including the impact on habitats and protected species.
46. In response the Council said it had an ongoing enforcement case, and it would provide an outcome as soon as possible. It would therefore not investigate his complaint.
47. In May 2025 Mr F asked the Council to escalate his complaint. He also said the original 2022 planning application should not have been approved due to flaws in surveys as these related to old plans. He questioned how the Council had considered relevant protected species, habitats, and licence requirements from Natural England.
48. The Council considered the owner’s CLEUD application and obtained legal advice. It found the development and activities on the site could not be considered through this process, and a previous enforcement notice for the site would still be in effect. The owner subsequently withdrew the CLEUD application.
49. In Summer 2025 the Council told Mr F about its current position regarding the site and provided its final complaint response. The key points were:
• it acknowledged there had been delays and its communication had been poor with Mr F due to staffing challenges. However, it had started a project to improve its service which aimed at reducing officer workload and delays in its processes. However, it was satisfied it had followed appropriate planning procedures;
• it has an open enforcement case regarding the caravan use on the site following the withdrawn CLEUD application. It would review its options if the owner did not remove the caravan or seek further planning approval;
• the 2022 planning approval now requires third party consent for access. The use of the bridleway had been considered by its Public Rights of Way and Highways team, which had not raised concerns about the use or safety around access from the highway. Nor were any further consents required. It explained the use or obstructions of the bridleway would be for the Police to consider;
• a full planning permission application would be required by the owner due to the changes in the proposal, location and parking. It will review whether to take action pending a further application from the owner, who had confirmed he intended to submit a new application including access and parking arrangement; and
• it acknowledged some errors in the 2022 planning approval. This included reference to no trees being cut, which was incorrect as a few small trees would be cut. It also said a new planning application would require further ecological information relating to protected species and habitats as part of a revised scheme. The owner had been advised not to proceed with additional works until such assessment was completed.
50. The Council remained in discussions with the owner who confirmed his intention to seek further planning approval for the site.
51. Mr F said he has since told the Council about further works and breaches of planning control by the owner. He also believes the development did not lawfully commence and are therefore no longer permitted. He asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint in Autumn 2025.

Analysis and findings

52. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to determine whether there has been a breach of planning control or whether enforcement action should be taken. That is the Council’s role. Our role is to look at the way these decisions are made, and to consider if any fault in the process is likely to have affected the outcome.
53. The Council has acknowledged there has been delays in considering and responding to Mr F’s concerns about breaches of planning control for the site. This was largely due to challenges the Council experienced relating to staffing changes within its planning enforcement team.
54. In early 2026 we issued our Focus Report: Losing control: complaints about planning enforcement. This sets out common problems we have identified for local planning authorities which includes challenges in staffing and appropriate processes to manage changes and workloads.
55. I have found the Council at fault for causing unnecessary delay in its handling of Mr F’s planning control concerns. Including its delay, or failures, to respond to his communication, additional concerns, and request for updates. I am satisfied this caused Mr F some frustration and uncertainty This was throughout 2024 and for some periods in 2025. In reaching my view, I acknowledge:
• there was no requirement for the Council to provide regular updates. However, it should have provided some further responses and updates in this case;
• the Council had staffing challenges which it was not in control of, and it allocated new officers when this happened. However, appropriate processes and mitigations should have been in place to limit or prevent delays. This includes clear record keeping enabling it to respond to communication and provide relevant updates;
• some responses the Council provided did not include all key aspects of Mr F’s concerns, which meant he had to repeat his concerns to obtain its views and responses;
• some progress was made on Mr F’s planning enforcement concerns which included site visits, considerations about the development which had taken place on the site, and negotiations with the site owner; and
• some delay were due to the owner and the application for regularisation of use. Such periods were not fault by the Council as both planning guidance and the Council’s enforcement policy recommends negotiation and seeking approval for use or works which has taken place before any formal enforcement action commences.
56. I have considered whether there was fault in the process the Council followed to reach its decisions around the use and development of the site. I found no fault by the Council (other than the delays). This is because it:
• inspected the site to form its views of the use and works which had taken place. This included planning enforcement, Public Rights of Way and Highways officers.
• sought information, plans, and planning application(s) from the owner to regularise use or works which were taking place;
• reached its view the concerns would be best dealt with through informal negotiation. This was partly as the owner was entitled to conduct some works in line with the 2022 planning approval;
• considered the owner’s use of and works to the bridleway and access. This included views of its Public Right of Way and Highway officers. It found it was not appropriate for the Council to seek enforcement action, and the use was for the police to consider. I also note the change of access rights did not invalidate the 2022 planning approval;
• considered the owner’s CLEUD application and sought legal advice. It found the use and works required a full planning permission to be submitted. This was because the location of the works and additional changes were materially different from the 2022 planning approval; and
• acknowledged some errors in its 2022 planning approval and the need for additional consideration of environmental and wildlife considerations, including protected species. However, it found this could be conditioned through the expected planning application from the owner, and it received assurances the owner would conduct a new Arboricultural survey.
57. I acknowledge Mr F wanted the Council to take more formal action against the use and development which had taken place. However, as I have not found fault in the process the Council followed to reach its views, it reached decisions it was entitled to make up to July 2025.
58. It is clear the enforcement concerns, use, and development have been ongoing for the site since July 2025 when the Council provided its final complaint response. The expectation up until then was for the owner to submit a full planning application with appropriate amended plans, parking and access information, and an Arboricultural assessment. The case has progressed and new issues has been brought to the Council’s attention, which I cannot consider as part of this investigation.

Back to top

Action

59. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr F, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mr F to acknowledge the injustice 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.

60. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2. review, or share the outcome of any recent review, of its planning enforcement service’s ability to manage workloads, staffing changes, and retain appropriate records. This is to ensure it can act without delay on reports of planning control breaches and respond appropriately to individuals in line with its Planning Enforcement policy. The Council may wish to have regard to our Focus Report: Losing control: complaints about planning enforcement.
61. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

62. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council for causing delays and responding to Mr F’s planning enforcement concerns. There was no other fault in the process it followed to reach its views. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. The Council will apologise to Mr F to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty its faults caused and carry out a service improvement recommendation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman