Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against the change of use of a hotel near his home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council based a planning decision on the change of use of a closed hotel without necessary information.
2. He also complains the Council failed to keep proper planning records.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Planning 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. 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)

What happened

9. The Home Office block-booked the use of a hotel near Mr X’s home for contingency accommodation for asylum seekers. The new use started after the hotel closed. No planning permission was sought from the Council for change of use of the site, so the Council did not grant planning permission.
10. The Council opened an enforcement investigation. A case officer prepared a report. The report shows the history of the site, it also confirms the officer believed the use of the hotel for long term accommodation for asylum seekers was a material change of use.
11. As the Council has established a change of use had occurred, it then had to consider whether to take enforcement action against the breach of planning control.
12. The report detailed which policies had been breached by the unauthorised change of use and considered the:
• Use of the site by long term residents rather than short term occupants.
• The impact on the amenity of the area including noise.
• Proportionality of taking enforcement action against the breach of planning control.
• The Public Sector Equality Act; and
• The Human Rights Act.
13. The case officer concluded the “degree of harm identified is not significant and does not weigh heavily in favour of taking formal enforcement action.”
14. A senior officer reviewed the report and agreed with the case officer recommendation. The Council decided not to take enforcement action against the breach of planning control.
15. The Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision that there is no breach of planning control. Our role is to review the process by which the Council has reached its decision.
16. Mr X also complains the Council failed to keep proper records. However, the Council explained it did not provide certain information to him because it did not fall within the dates specified by Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman