Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council considered his reports of breaches of planning control. 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 applied the wrong legal test when it considered his reports of a material change of use at his neighbour’s property. And had a conflict of interest. He also complains the Council’s stage two complaint response was not independent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Planning enforcement

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
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. Mr X told the Council his neighbour was breaching planning control by increasing the commercial activity at his home. Mr X believes there has been a material change of use from a residential home by the cumulative effect of increased commercial use.
10. Section 171c of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows the Council to service a Planning Contravention Notice. This is a legal document that enables the Council to gather more information if it appears there may be a breach of planning control.
11. The Council confirms it opened a planning enforcement investigation. It considered the information provided by Mr X. An officer also visited the site and served a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) on the neighbours.
12. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council states the neighbour complied with the PCN. Also, when visiting the site, the officer was satisfied most commercial activity was taking place off site.
13. In conducting the enforcement investigation, the Council says it:
• considered the information provided by Mr X
• reviewed the information provided in the PCN
• visited the site and observed the activity and materials/equipment; and
• considered the impact of the business activity on the area.
14. The Council decided there was not enough evidence to prove there is a material change of use at the property. Having followed the process, we would expect to see, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make. We cannot say the Council should take a particular view about an alleged breach if it has acted properly by considering it.
15. Mr X is also concerned there was a conflict of interest because it has contracted his neighbour to provide various works. He says the Council confirmed it let contracts worth about £25,000 to the neighbour in 2024/25. However, I have not seen enough evidence that this affected the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control.
16. I understand Mr X is also concerned about the way the Council dealt with his complaint and questions the independence of the process.
17. The Council has based its complaint policy on the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. Its’ policy states:
• At stage one a complaint will be investigated by the relevant service team.
• At stage two, the complaint will be reviewed by an officer from the Corporate Management Team.
18. In Mr X’s case, his complaint was referred to the planning enforcement team. Following an investigation, the Manager responded to Mr X.
19. Mr X’s complaint was reviewed and responded to by the Chief Planning Officer who is also an Assistant Director and member of the Corporate Management Team.
20. From the information I have seen the Council appears to have correctly followed its’ published complaint policy. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his reports of breaches of planning control or its complaint policy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman