Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to pursue enforcement action over a planning condition requiring a former local pub to be refurbished. He also complained the Council refused a local community group’s request to buy the pub using a compulsory purchase order, and the Council’s listing of the pub as an asset of community value failed to include all its garden. We found there was some fault in the Council’s first consideration of the request to use its compulsory purchase powers. However, this did not result in significant remaining injustice. The remainder of Mr X’s complaint is late, and we did not investigate it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to pursue enforcement action over a planning condition requiring a former local pub to be refurbished as part of housing development, and the Council refused a local community group’s request for a compulsory order (CPO) when the pub was not re-instated.
2. Mr X also complained the listing of the pub as an asset of community value failed to include all its garden.
3. Mr X feared the Council’s lack of action will result in the loss of an important community asset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I investigated how the Council reached its decision to refuse a CPO.
8. I did not investigate the Council’s delay and refusal to take further planning enforcement action. The issue of delays taking enforcement action date back to 2020 and is now a late complaint. In addition, planning enforcement action is discretionary, and we would not criticise a council for considering further planning applications to try to overcome a planning breach.
9. I did not investigate whether the Council incorrectly drew a boundary line on the pub’s most recent ACV listing. This decision was made in 2021, and is also a late complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
11. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
12. 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

Assets of community value

13. The Localism Act 2011 (Part 5, Chapter 3) provides for a scheme called ‘assets of community value’ (ACV) which is a register of land and buildings nominated by local community groups or parish councils. Broadly speaking, the aim of registration is to give communities the opportunity to take control of local neighbourhood facilities which are no longer in use and then enable them to prepare a financial bid to buy them. 
14. The listing of an asset does not compel its owner to put it up for sale. Neither does it create any additional restriction on what the owner can do with the property while they own it. 
15. The scheme does not give a community the right to buy the asset, just to bid. This means the local community bid may not be the successful one.
16. Several community groups have applied to list local pubs as community assets. Some pub owners were using legal permitted development rights to change the planning use of their pubs to ‘residential dwellings’, which cannot be community assets. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2015 stopped this from 6 April 2015.
17. A local planning authority may find land and buildings listed as ACV relevant and take it into account as a material planning consideration when deciding a planning application.

Compulsory purchase orders

18. In 2015, the Government issued revised guidance covering the right of community organisations to call on local authorities to issue compulsory purchase orders on land or buildings which are unused and have been, or could be, of benefit to the community. The guidance states:
19. Authorities can receive requests from the community or local bodies to use their compulsory purchase powers to acquire community assets, which may have been designated as ACV, that are in danger of being lost where the owner of the asset is unwilling to sell or vacant commercial properties that are detracting from the vitality of an area.
20. Local authorities should consider all requests from third parties, but particularly voluntary and community organisations, which put forward a scheme for a particular asset which would require compulsory purchase to take forward, and provide a formal response.
21. Local authorities must be able to finance the cost of the scheme (including the compensation to the owner) and the compulsory purchase order process either from their own resources, or with a partial or full contribution from those making the request.
22. Local authorities should, for example, ascertain the value of the asset to the community, or the effect of bringing it back into use; the perceived threat to the asset; the future use of the asset and who would manage it (including a business plan where appropriate); any planning issues; and how the acquisition would be financed.

Planning enforcement

23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.

What happened

26. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
27. Mr X’s complaint concerns a local pub which closed several years ago and is listed as an asset of community value.
28. A community group formed to save the pub and offered to buy it in 2015, but the owner rejected their offer. Instead, the owner sold the pub to a residential developer.
29. The new owner of the pub gained planning permission in 2017 to convert part of the building into two homes, keeping part of the building as a smaller pub. The Council included a planning condition requiring the owner to give details of the internal refurbishment of the pub for the Council to approve. Once approved, the owner had to complete and refurbish the pub within six months of the date the homes were first occupied.
30. The owner completed building work and the first home was occupied in 2020. However, the second home and pub remained unsold, and the owner had not completed or refurbished the pub.
31. The pub’s ACV listing expired, and Mr X applied for it to be relisted. The Council agreed to re-list the pub in 2021. However, this time the listing did not include all the garden space previously included.
32. The Council did not take enforcement action over the planning condition breach at that time. The owner applied to remove the ACV listing, but the Council refused. The owner applied to change the use of the pub to residential in 2021. Again, the Council refused. The owner then sold the pub and second home to another new owner.
33. The Council served a Breach of Condition Notice on the pub owner on 11 November 2022 as it remained un-refurbished.
34. The new owner applied to change the use of the pub to residential and join it to the second home. This time the Council granted planning permission.
35. The community group challenged the Council’s decision, and it was quashed by the High Court. The application was sent back to the Council to be reconsidered.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

36. Mr X complained to the Council in March 2024. He asked why the Council did not enforce over the breach of condition and why it took no action when the owner did not comply with the Breach of Condition Notice issued in November 2022. The Council previously said it would allow the owner two months to make a planning application, but it allowed five months. Mr X also said the boundary on the ACV plan is incorrect and only covers part of the property.
37. The Council said it had been in negotiations with the owner and decided prosecution was not reasonable since the owner applied for the ACV to be removed and then applied to regularise the breach.
38. The Council recognised it did not deal with the ACV issue quickly and apologised. It said it asked the owner for significant extra information about the current planning application and is awaiting a response. If the planning officer then recommends approval the application will go before the planning committee.
39. The Council said it would refer the boundary issue on the ACV plan to its legal department.
40. Mr X asked to escalate his complaint to stage two of the procedure in September 2024. He accepted enforcement is discretionary but said the Council failed to consider all interested parties and material interests, not just the owner. He said the Council had a duty to support ACV under the Localism Act and should strongly support the pub. He said the Council’s lack of action allowed the owner to make a new change of use application resulting in the loss of the pub use. If the Council took enforcement action sooner, it would have protected the pub.
41. Mr X also said he was still waiting to hear why the Council did not include the whole garden as part of the ACV listing after the Council referred the matter to its legal department.
42. Mr X wrote to the Council again after the Council conceded a judicial review against the grant of planning permission. He asked if enforcement action would now happen to ensure the owner completes the pub. He also highlighted his belief the owner built the party wall between the pub and home in the wrong place, reducing the floorspace of the pub.
43. Mr X said the community group would like to investigate a CPO and asked the Council to provide a formal response and reasons for its decision.
44. The Council said the planning condition required details of internal refurbishment and for a refit to occur. It could not and did not require a pub to be run. It did not agree there was any harm to public amenity, as the fitting out of a space would not provide any public amenity. It said the planning permission granted in 2017 does not require a pub to be provided it only required the fitting out of a space within the building.
45. The Council said its legal department confirmed the building remains on the ACV listings and there has been no change to include the garden area.
46. The Council said it did not consider there was a case to use its CPO powers to buy the property from its owners.

My investigation

47. Mr X was unhappy with delays by the Council, and that it did not seek to enforce the Breach of Condition Notice and prosecute the owner. Instead, the Council considered planning applications from the owner to try to overcome the breach by changing the use of the building from a pub to residential.
48. Mr X considers the Council’s behaviour was unreasonable, and disadvantaged the community and the reinstatement of the pub. He said the Council did not operate in the supportive spirit of a community that planning guidance expects.
49. Mr X told me he considered the party wall between the new home and the pub was built in the wrong place on both floors, giving the home more space and the pub less. He said this has also reduced the pub’s garden area.
50. The Council told me its decision to grant planning permission for a change of use was quashed after judicial review. The application was sent back to the Council for re-determination. The Council said it would not be suitable to take enforcement action while considering a live planning application.
51. The Council said it will only seek to buy land compulsorily where it promotes economic, social, or environmental well-being. Or where it is for proper planning. It said this is in line with legislation and guidance.
52. The Council said it did not see a compelling case in the public interest to use compulsory purchase powers.
53. That was after considering the history and lack of progress made by the community group, who did not fulfil their ambition of buying the pub despite its status as an asset of community value. It also said it was unclear what the community group expected the Council to do if it bought the property, as Council functions do not include running pubs.
54. The Council said it did not receive a formal request from the community group about it making a CPO, only an email from Mr X mentioning compulsory purchase powers. The Council did not take this as a formal request. However, Mr X did make a formal request in June 2025.
55. The Council told me it did not list all land included in Mr X’s 2021 ACV application for the pub because it was not satisfied all land met the relevant test. The Council therefore only listed part of the land. It explained this in its report at the time. The Council suggested Mr X re-apply for the remaining land to be included in the listing if he disagrees with its decision, including any evidence he has in support.
56. When considering the application to change the use of the pub to a home, the Council said it did not survey the building and accepted the planning documents in good faith, as it does on all applications. It said the issue of the boundary would not usually be a material planning consideration, and any boundary dispute would be a private legal matter for the landowners.

Analysis

57. The Council said it did not receive a formal request from the community group about making a CPO. While there may not have been a formal request, when Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two, he said the community group would like to investigate a CPO. And he asked the Council to provide a formal response and reasons for its decision.
58. The Council did confirm its stance on making a CPO in its complaint response, but this was a brief one-line answer.
59. The Council should have considered the pub’s value to the community and the effect of bringing it back into use. It should also have considered future management of the pub and the cost of compulsory purchase. It should then have issued the community group with a formal response. The Council’s response did not engage with any of the pros and cons of the proposal or detail any of the considerations listed in the Government guidance. It was therefore not possible to understand the reasons behind the Council’s decision. That was fault.
60. However, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to tell the Council in what circumstances it should use its compulsory purchase powers. It is ultimately a decision for the Council to make based on the facts of the case. While I appreciate the Council’s complaint response did not properly explain the Council’s assessment, the Council has explained its reasoning now and it was entitled to reach the decision it took after considering the evidence. I therefore do not consider Mr X suffered any significant remaining injustice arising from the Council’s fault.
61. Mr X contends the owner built the party wall between the pub and second home in the wrong place. The Council told me this was not a material planning consideration when it assessed the owner’s change of use application, and it has not been investigated. Boundary and party wall disputes are private matters between property owners. This is not something the Ombudsman can decide.
62. Following judicial review, the planning application to change the use of the pub to residential is now back with the Council for reconsideration. If the Council refuses to grant planning permission, it can then reconsider whether it is expedient to take further enforcement action over the failure to refurbish the pub.

Back to top

Final Decision

63. I found there was some fault in the Council’s first consideration of the request to use its compulsory purchase powers. However, this did not cause significant injustice. The remainder of Mr X’s complaint is late, and I did not investigate it.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman