Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action when a neighbouring property was extended and turned into a hotel without planning permission. This caused loss of amenity and distress. There was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to review the enforcement case and contact Mr X when it refused planning permission in April 2024, and when it delayed responding to Mr X’s stage two complaint. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action when a neighbouring property was extended and turned into a hotel without planning permission.
2. Mr X said his family suffered noise nuisance from unauthorised building works and from guests of the hotel. He also said the unauthorised works resulted in loss of enjoyment of his garden, loss of sunlight, overshadowing and loss of privacy, causing the family distress.

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

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. 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 Enforcement

8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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)
12. 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.

The Council’s planning enforcement policy

13. The Council prioritises cases based on the seriousness of the alleged breach and the harm caused.
14. For priority 1 cases the Council aims to visit the site, decide what action to take, and provide an update within two working days.
15. For priority 2 cases the Council aims to visit the site, if necessary, decide what action to take, and provide an update within twenty working days.
16. For priority 3 cases the Council aims to visit the site, if necessary, decide what action to take, and provide an update within thirty working days.

Noise nuisance

17. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
18. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance includes noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
19. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

20. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
21. Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
22. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance, but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

What happened

23. 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.
24. The Council granted planning permission for a two-storey side extension and part single, part two storey rear extension of a house on Mr X’s street in 2020. I shall refer to this house as ‘the property’.
25. The owner of the property applied for a selective licence for the house in December 2022. The Council issued the licence in 2023. This allowed the owner to rent out the property to a single household.
26. The property owner applied for planning permission to change the use of the house to a hotel in January 2024. This included asking for retrospective permission for works to the front porch and side and rear extensions.
27. Mr X reported a breach of planning permission on 14 March 2024. He said the property owner carried out unauthorised extension works.
28. The Council opened an enforcement investigation and classed the alleged breach as priority 2.
29. Mr X reported noise from construction work at the property in April 2024.
30. The Council emailed Mr X on 5 April. It said it wrote to the property owner advising them, under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, any noisy construction works should be limited to Monday-Friday: 8am-6pm and Saturday: 8am-1pm. They should not carry out work Sundays or Bank Holidays. It attached diary sheets for Mr X to complete if the owner did not adhere to these hours. The Council said if it then evidenced or witnessed the owner not adhering to the correct hours, it may serve a notice under section 60 of the Act, requiring the owner to take specific measures. This could lead to prosecution. It asked Mr X to return the diary sheets within four weeks, or it would assume the warning letter had resolved the matter.
31. The Council refused permission for the property owner to change the use to a hotel, plus the associated extension works, on 25 April 2024.
32. The property owner emailed the Council in September 2024 asking for advice about the requirements for converting the property to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).
33. The Council sent the owner information about its HMO licensing scheme and relevant planning legislation for changing the use of the property. It advised the owner they would need to make a full planning application.
34. Mr X reported alleged use of the property as a hotel on 16 September 2024.
35. The Council again opened an enforcement investigation. This time it classed the alleged breach as priority 3.
36. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman on 12 October 2024 about the planning enforcement service’s handling of the case looking into the unauthorised hotel use and associated works to the property. He complained about lack of action and lack of updates. Mr X had not completed the Council’s complaint process, so we referred his complaint to the Council.
37. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint on 31 October and said it would respond within twenty working days.
38. The Council served a Planning Contravention Notice on the property owner on 31 October 2024 and updated Mr X.
39. The property owner again applied for planning permission to change the use of the house to a hotel in November 2024. This included asking for retrospective permission for works to the front porch and side and rear extensions.
40. The Council sent its stage one complaint response on 14 November 2024. It said:
• It opened an enforcement case on 14 March 2024. This was paused when the property owner applied for planning permission.
• The Council refused permission on 24 April 2024 and there was then a delay as the case officer changed roles. It apologised for not communicating this to Mr X.
• It was progressing Mr X’s case as a priority and would update him on the next steps.
• It needs evidence the hotel had been occupied in order to prove a change of use. Gathering evidence can take time and is needed before it can serve an enforcement notice.
• It will also review the external works undertaken to decide if it will take further action.
41. The Council notified Mr X the property owner had made a further planning application on 22 November 2024.
42. Mr X contacted the Council in November 2024 alleging the property was being used as a HMO. He said the neighbour turned the house into a 12-bedroom property and rented all the rooms out. He complained about smell of cannabis, parties until the early hours, and doors banging. He said the noise disturbed his family’s sleep.
43. The Council referred the matter for an inspection to see if there were any breaches of the selective licence conditions. It emailed Mr X telling him the owner advised a single family was occupying the property. It said an officer would visit to inspect.
44. The Council’s licensing service visited the property on 3 December 2024. A guest confirmed the property was a hotel and they had booked through a website. The Council’s licensing service could not act because the owner was no longer privately renting the property. They referred the hotel use to the Council’s planning enforcement service.
45. The property owner applied to cancel the selective licence in December 2024 as they said they were in the process of changing the use of the property. The Council cancelled the selective licence.
46. The Council received an anonymous complaint about the property being used as an illegal hotel in January 2025. It referred this to its planning enforcement service.
47. Mr X reported adult noises from the property on 7 January 2025. On 8 January he reported suspected use as a brothel.
48. Mr X contacted the Ombudsman on 10 February 2025. He said he wrote to the Council to escalate his complaint over two months ago but received no reply. We contacted the Council for confirmation it was considering the complaint.
49. The Council’s planning enforcement service told Mr X on 11 February 2025 that enforcement action was on hold pending the outcome of the property owner’s planning application.
50. The Council again refused the property owner’s application to change the use of the house to a hotel on 13 February 2025. The Council warned the owner they must stop using the property as a hotel by 6 March 2025.
51. Mr X reported more adult noises from the property on 14 February 2025. An officer telephoned Mr X. Mr X said there was noise and prostitution occurring. The officer visited at 23:51. They noted it was quiet. There was no noise or music. Mr X told the officer there was music played until late on other nights.
52. The Council decided the adult noises were not enforceable as a statutory nuisance. The property was advertised as a hotel, not a brothel. It was likely one-off guests caused the noise.
53. The Council’s planning enforcement service emailed Mr X on 3 March 2025. It aimed to respond in 10 working days.
54. Mr X emailed the Council on 6 March 2025 advising the property was still used and advertised as a hotel. He said he received no response from the Council about next steps.
55. The Council’s complaint service responded to the Ombudsman on 10 March 2025. It told us the complaints team had a reduction in resources significantly impacting response times. It said it would respond to Mr X’s complaint by 9 April 2025.
56. The Council’s planning enforcement service reviewed the case on 10 March 2025 and contacted the owner. It told them to stop using the property as a hotel or further enforcement action would follow.
57. The Council spoke to Mr X on 10 March 2025. He asked if the Council served a section 60 notice on the property owner. The Council said it did not, as it had not heard back from Mr X. Mr X had intended to send diary sheets and would forward them on. The Council said it needed up to date incidents. Mr X referred to building work noise during office hours. The Council said this was acceptable between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday, and between 8am and 1pm on Saturdays.
58. Mr X made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request on 11 March 2025 seeking inspection reports, licensing records, planning enforcement records, and noise nuisance complaint records in relation to the property as well as correspondence with the landlord.
59. Mr X also reported ongoing construction noise on 11 March 2025. He said this resulted in loss of enjoyment of his home and garden, and distress. He said construction work also happened outside permitted hours.
60. Mr X emailed the Council with noise diary sheets on 12 March 2025. This was noise he recorded in November. The Council noted this was mostly slamming doors, banging, and human activity from occupiers and was associated with the hotel activity. It was not construction noise and not current. The owner had told the Council the hotel use had stopped.
61. Mr X sent the Council more diary sheets on 15 March. The Council noted three pages related to non-construction noise between November and January. One page related to construction noise. From Saturday 8 March to Wednesday 12 March Mr X recorded noise started at 8am and ended in the afternoon. He also recorded noise from 8am to 5pm on Friday 14 March, and from 8am until the afternoon on Saturday 15 March.
62. Mr X sent the Council a video recording on 22 March. The Council noted this did not show any activity, but audio of a grinding sound. The Council suspected this may be remedial works in relation to the enforcement case to cease the hotel use.
63. The Council sent its final response on 31 March 2025. It said:
• It classed the report on 14 March 2024 as priority 2. There was an open planning application to regularise the breach under consideration. It should have told Mr X enforcement investigations would not continue until the planning decision was made.
• Mr X was notified of the application in January 2024 and commented, so he was aware a decision was still awaited when he reported the breach of planning permission.
• The refusal of this application in April 2024 should have triggered a review of the enforcement case, but did not, and officers did not contact Mr X.
• Mr X reported alleged hotel use in September 2024. This was classified as priority 3 and officers updated him on time.
• After the Council refused an application to change the use to a hotel, officers contacted the owner to cease the use. They are due to complete a compliance review and update Mr X.
• It investigated both Mr X’s reports of planning breaches and there was no evidence of procedural failings.
64. Mr X wrote to the Council on 1 April 2025. He said the Council failed to enforce planning control at the property and he received no substantive response about the unauthorised hotel use, construction noise breaches, or the Council’s refusal of the property owner’s planning application – which he said obliged the Council to take enforcement action. He said he would seek judicial review if the Council did not respond within 7 days.
65. The Council emailed Mr X on 2 April advising it would visit the site that week to look at planning matters and construction noise.
66. Mr X replied stating the construction noise was no longer the primary issue. His concern was the property is in active use as a HMO.
67. The Council visited the site on 3 April. It found recent remedial works relating to planning enforcement. Hotel use had stopped and the owner had converted the property to a HMO with 8 rooms and three self-contained units of accommodation. The owner said they would apply for a licence and planning permission. The Council advised the owner it would open a new file for unauthorised HMO use.
68. The property owner submitted a HMO licence application later in April 2025.
69. The property owner also applied for planning permission to change the use of the property from a single dwelling house to a HMO in May 2025. This included asking for retrospective permission for works to the front porch, side extension, rear extension, roof extension and an outbuilding to the rear.
70. The Council granted permission. It considered Mr X’s objection about noise, but decided there should not be a substantial increase in noise for a 10 bed HMO compared to the previous use, which was a 7-bed family house. The Council considered the impact extensions to the property may have on Mr X, but decided they would not negatively impact his amenity.
71. Mr X emailed the Council on 31 July 2025 stating he experienced over six months of constant banging and construction noise. He also sent a video of the property. The Council was able to hear some banging noise, but could not identify who was causing the noise or where it was coming from. It also noted there was no timestamp on the video.
72. The Council sent a warning to the property owner on 1 August 2025.

Analysis

73. Mr X told us the HMO means loss of enjoyment of his garden, loss of sunlight, overshadowing and loss of privacy. He also said he suffered stress and his disabled mother’s health deteriorated.
74. The HMO now has planning permission, so the extensions are no longer unlawful. The Council considered the impact on neighbours as part of the retrospective planning application, but decided there was no harm significant enough to refuse permission. The Council is entitled to its professional judgement when making this decision, and I cannot question the merits.
75. In response to my draft decision, Mr X said there is a discrepancy in the HMO planning application. When considering the impact on neighbours, the planning officer said Mr X has an extension, which Mr X disputes. The Council made this decision during my investigation, and it was not part of the enforcement complaints I investigated. I have included details of this decision for context. Mr X will need to raise this with the Council in the first instance.
76. Mr X told us he made Freedom of Information requests which showed the Council found breaches of planning but closed the case with no further action. He said the Council relied on the owner’s verbal assurances the hotel use had ceased and they would make a retrospective application.
77. The fact the Council found planning breaches does not automatically mean it will or should take formal enforcement action. Enforcement action is discretionary, and we would not criticise the Council for trying to resolve any identified harm informally, or for inviting a planning application in order to regularise a breach.
78. In this case, the Council did serve a contravention notice, and it visited the site to check hotel use had stopped. When the property owner submitted retrospective planning applications the Council had to consider them.
79. I appreciate it was frustrating for Mr X that the property owner acted without planning permission, and this impacted Mr X and his family. However, I found no fault in the Council’s decision making when investigating Mr X’s reports of planning breaches.
80. I disagree with the Council’s assertion there was no evidence of procedural failings. By the Council’s own admission, it failed to review the enforcement case and contact Mr X when it refused planning permission in April 2024. The Council should have followed up with Mr X and the property owner at that point, and considered whether to pursue formal enforcement action. That was fault. It meant there was a period of about five months between April and September 2024 when no progress was made on the enforcement case.
81. The Council’s failings caused Mr X avoidable frustration and distress. However, I cannot say the matter would have concluded sooner or been resolved if the Council had acted at that time, as there were two further planning applications for the Council to consider.
82. Mr X also reported noise associated with the hotel use and construction noise. The Council considered Mr X’s noise diary sheets and also visited the site. It did not witness noise when it visited, and decided it was likely human activity associated with the hotel that it could not take action against. The Council sent warnings to the property owner regarding the alleged construction noise. It considered Mr X’s video evidence, including doorbell camera and mobile phone recordings. It decided this either did not show who was responsible for the noise, or what time of day it occurred. I have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s noise complaints.
83. I found the Council delayed considering Mr X’s complaint at stage two of the process. I appreciate the Council said this was down to staffing issues, but it should have communicated this to Mr X. I found the Council at fault.
84. The Council’s delay considering Mr X’s complaint at stage two will have caused him further frustration. However, the enforcement case was properly proceeding during this time. The complaint process could not have sped up the enforcement investigation or influenced whether the planning service took formal action. It also could not influence the behaviour of the property owner.

Back to top

Agreed Action

85. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for failing to review the first enforcement case and contact him when it refused planning permission in April 2024. And apologise for the delay responding to Mr X’s stage two complaint.
• Pay Mr X £200 for the avoidable frustration and distress its faults caused.
86. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

87. I found there was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to review the enforcement case and contact Mr X when it refused planning permission in April 2024, and when it delayed responding to Mr X’s stage two complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman