Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his planning and enforcement concerns about a neighbouring business. We found fault by the Council for causing unnecessary delays in its handling of the enforcement process and some poor communication. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact this caused Mr X. It also agreed to complete a service improvement recommendation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about the Council’s handling of planning control and enforcement of a business next to his home. He said the Council had:
• wrongly allowed the business to continue and failed to acknowledge his concerns about the impact of the business on his family, property and the traffic;
• considered enforcement action rather than requesting the owners make a planning application; and
• refused to meet with him to discuss his complaints and communicated poorly.
2. Mr X said, as a result, he has experienced an impact on his residential amenity, noise, and anti-social behaviour from his neighbour and customers of the business.

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. Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s handling of his concerns about business operating next to his home since Spring 2024. He brought his concerns to our attention in November 2025. Parts of his complaint is therefore late. However, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider his complaint from Spring 2024 due to the length of time it took the Council to respond to his concerns.
9. I have not investigated concerns Mr X had about:
• the Council’s responses to his information requests. This is because such matters are best handled by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO);
• the businesses operations and opening hours in 2026. This is because any changes or intensifications should be reported to the Council for its consideration. It is then for the Council to decide if any action should be taken.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Permitted development

12. Not all development needs planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.
13. Some permitted development proposals need an application so the council can decide whether it can or should control certain parts of the development, such as design and materials issues or access to the highway. These applications are known as ‘prior notification’ applications.

Planning Use Classes

14. 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’.
15. 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.

Planning enforcement

16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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)

The Council’s Enforcement policy

20. The Council’s policy set out how it intends to prioritise and investigate the planning enforcement concerns it receives. It sets out some timescales its aims to meet to acknowledge and investigate alleged breaches. This includes to provide a complainant with updates about its actions and what further action it may take within 25 working days of received a concern. It says this may be to gather additional information and evidence over time, but it will update complainants in any case every 30 working days.
21. Its policy also makes it clear its planning service cannot consider issues such as neighbour disputes and lawful use of the public highway.
22. We issued our report, Losing control: complaints about planning enforcement, in February 2026 about delays in the planning enforcement process where we found failures to progress enforcement cases may indicate systemic issues.
23. 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 face, however, such delays amount to a service failure.

What happened

24. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
25. Mr X lives in a residential area with a cul-de-sac.
26. In Spring 2024 Mr X told the Council his neighbour was operating a business without planning permission from a residential property. He said this impacted his residential amenity due to noise, traffic movement, and anti-social behaviour from visitors and customers. He had attempted to resolve issues with the neighbour beforehand.
27. Over the following months, the Council considered Mr X’s concerns. This included:
• its Environmental Health team considered noise through diary sheets and noise monitoring but found no statutory nuisance existed. Mr X had reported anti-social behaviour to the Police and the Council, who spoke with the neighbour, but decided no action should be taken;
• its Highways team considered traffic and parking, but found no action could be taken as the neighbour and customers were entitled to use the highway; and
• its Planning team opened an enforcement case, spoke with Mr X and considered information he provided, obtained information from the business, and visited the site. The officer’s view was it was permitted development. The business use was not a material change of use to the domestic dwelling based on the size of the building and activities taking place.
28. Mr X continued to raise concerns about the business to the Council’s planning team. However, due to staff leaving the Council and absences no further responses or progress were made.
29. In late 2024 a temporary planning officer was allocated to the case, but limited or no responses were made to Mr X. He asked the Council for a visit, which took place in December 2024. He received some information about the business’s proposed hours and limits to the number of costumers at the same time. The Council told Mr X it would share its views.
30. In early 2025 Mr X chased the Council for an update following its visit. He subsequently complained when he had not received a response. He felt the Council had handled his concerns about noise, anti-social behaviour, traffic, and planning control concerns poorly. He continued to disagree the business was permitted development and said the business use and hours was more than what the owner had shared with the Council.
31. A month later Mr X chased the Council for a response. It said it considered his complaint a service request and would respond. It was also seeking legal advice.
32. In April 2025 the Council responded to Mr X. It explained its environmental health, anti-social behaviour, and highway cases were closed. However, its planning enforcement case remained open. It had sought further information from the business and received its response. The Council’s view was planning permission was not required for a change of use, and there was therefore nothing for it to enforce.
33. Mr X asked the Council for a response to his complaint. The Council subsequently provided this but did not uphold his concerns about its handling or decisions.
34. In Summer 2025 the Council allocated a new enforcement officer to Mr X’s case, who visited the site and met with Mr X and the business owner. The officer found the Council’s initial assessment was flawed and insufficient. He found the business was not permitted development but amounted to a change of use and required planning permission.
35. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint about its handling of his concerns about the business and related activities in Autumn 2025.
36. In response the Council did not uphold his complaint. It said it had communicated with Mr X, but acknowledged it could have explained some communication better, and staffing changes had taken place. It also said it was possible for two enforcement officers to reach different views, which is what happened. However, it would consider whether to serve an enforcement notice or whether a planning application would be required.
37. In a further response to Mr X, the Council apologised some communication could have been more timely. It explained it will decide what action to take on the case, but it would:
• not demand a planning application as a material change of use had not occurred;
• consider serving an enforcement notice which would seek to impose planning conditions limiting the hours, days, and maximum numbers of customers per day for the business; and
• seek to protect residential amenity though the notice to ensure the business activity did not become the dominant use, and continue to monitor if further action would be required.
38. In November 2025 Mr X asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint about the Council’s handling of his concerns relating to the neighbouring business. He is unhappy the business continues to operate and disagrees with the Council’s proposed actions as he wants it to require a planning application in which he can submit his objections.
39. Since then, the Council visited Mr X again to reconsider the case. It observed the business and considered evidence he shared. It also discussed its concerns about the activities with the business owner.
40. In May 2026 the Council shared its most recent findings with Mr X and the Ombudsman. It explained:
• the business activities did amount did amount to a change of use. Its 2024 considerations were not well founded, and a breach of planning control had therefore taken place. It also acknowledged there had been delay due to officer leave and staffing changes;
• the business owner had confirmed they do not intend to seek planning permission. It had therefore considered whether enforcement action should be taken. This included serving an enforcement notice with the intent of securing conditions to mitigate any impacts from the activities, but this was not a desired outcome for Mr X; and
• it had considered its enforcement options. However, it had found it was not proportionate or expedient to take further action on the case. This was based on the existing use including the hours, days of operation, and it had no objections to the running of the business from the property overall.

Analysis and findings

Mr X’s planning and enforcement concerns

41. 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.
42. The Council has acknowledged there were delays in considering and responding to Mr X’s concerns about breaches of planning control by the neighbouring business. This was largely due to challenges the Council experienced relating to staffing changes within its planning enforcement team.
43. 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.
44. I found the Council at fault for causing unnecessary delay in its handling of Mr X’s planning control concerns and 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 was mindful:
• there are no requirements for the Council to keep individuals reporting enforcement concerns updated regularly. However, the Council’s policy says it aims to do so every 30 working days. This did not happen and Mr X had to chase the Council for responses;
• the Council was entitled to reach views on whether the neighbouring business was permitted development or required planning permission. It is also possible officers can reach different views. However, it has since agreed in Summer 2025 and in 2026 its initial view was flawed and poorly considered;
• the Council’s flawed views that the business was permitted development and did not amount to a change of use, is likely to have delayed its considerations of enforcement action. However, it has since properly considered the activities, having regard to the use, noise, and traffic from the business, but found it was not proportionate and expedient to take formal enforcement action. This was a decision it was entitled to make.
45. I understand Mr X wanted the Council to require his neighbour to apply for planning permission for the business as this would enable him to share his objections. However, the Council could only invite the neighbour to make an application. Once the neighbour shared, they would not apply for such permission, the Council correctly considered what enforcement action it deemed necessary in this case.
46. In addition, Mr X has attempted to get the Council to confirm the exact days, hours, and number of customers the neighbour business is allowed. This has partly been set out in the Council’s 2026 enforcement report which was recently shared with Mr X. However, it remains for the Council to decide if any subsequent intensification of use by the business changes its view on whether any formal enforcement action should be taken.

Mr X’s noise, highway and anti-social behaviour concerns

47. I have not found fault in how the Council considered these concerns. This is because it considered Mr X’s:
• noise concerns which included information from diary sheets, noise monitoring equipment, and observations during visits. It found no statutory nuisance existed and it was not satisfied the noise caused a significantly adverse impact on his amenity;
• highway concern which included the increased traffic as a result of the business. It found this was allowed use of the highway;
• anti-social behaviour concerns regarding his neighbour and customers of the business. It found the police had decided no action was required, allegations had been made against Mr X himself for anti-social behaviour, and it was not satisfied there was evidence for it to act. I also note the type of allegations were likely to be mainly for the police to consider.

Injustice

48. I have found fault by the Council for causing delays in the planning enforcement process in this case. However, the Council has since properly considered Mr X’s case and shared its decision not to take formal enforcement action. I cannot therefore say Mr X experienced an injustice due to an impact on his residential amenity.
49. However, I am satisfied the Council’s poor handling, changed and flawed views, and lack of communication in periods caused him frustration and uncertainty. I found the Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact this had on him.

Back to top

Action

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

2. pay Mr X a symbolic payment of £150 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty its delays and poor handling of his planning enforcement concerns caused. This was between Spring 2024 until Spring 2026, when it properly considered and reached its decision.
2. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3. review, or share the outcome of any recent review, of its planning enforcement service’s ability to manage workloads, staffing changes, and communication. 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.
3. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

53. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact its poor handling and delays had on him. It will also carry our a service improvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman