Summary: Mrs X complained about the Authority’s failure to take prompt enforcement action about a change of use at her neighbour’s property, when her own similar development was treated differently. Based on current evidence, we found the Authority be at fault because it took too long to take any initial action. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Authority has agreed to apologise and take action to improve its customer service. We did not find fault with the Authority’s response to the neighbouring development or find evidence of inconsistent decision making.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Authority’s failure to take prompt enforcement action about a change of use at her neighbour’s property. Specifically, she complains about:

• inconsistent and biased decision making about highway safety concerns; and
• delay in taking enforcement action about a change of use from residential to tourist accommodation.

2. She says this has caused considerable distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated what happened from October 2023, when Mrs X reported a potential breach of planning control until February 2025, when she brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. I have referred to earlier events for contextual reasons only

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Authority as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Authority had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, guidance and policy

Planning enforcement

8. Authorities can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, authorities 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, authorities 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, authorities 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. The authority may also consider service of a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN). It may send a PCN to an owner/occupier asking questions about development on their land. The recipient of a PCN has 21 days to reply. It is a criminal offence not to respond to a PCN and or to give a false or misleading response.
12. 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 September 2023, paragraph 60)
13. Enforcement action is subject to legal time limits. If the relevant time limit passes, the unauthorised development may become immune from enforcement action.

The Authority’s enforcement policy

14. This explains investigations can be lengthy and complex. The time taken to determine each case will vary depending on the site, people involved and the type of breach reported.
15. Upon receipt of an alleged breach the relevant team will aim to acknowledge all complaints within five working days. An initial site visit or desk top evaluation will take place within 15 days. Updates will be provided at key stages of an investigation.

What happened

Contextual information

16. Mrs X lives in a small rural development. In 2005, Mrs X’s neighbour (whom I shall refer to as Mrs T) successfully applied for planning permission to convert two barns (the Barns) into residential properties. The application included a proposal to stop up an existing shared access between these two properties.
17. In 2016, Mrs X started to rent out what were described as two “shepherds’ huts” on her land as a holiday let. Mrs T and others objected to this and reported the activity to the Authority. Mrs X was told she needed to apply for planning permission, and until his was obtained she should stop the business immediately.
18. In 2017 and 2018, Mrs X made two unsuccessful planning applications to allow her to let the shepherds’ huts as tourist accommodation. Both decisions were upheld on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Her applications were refused due to highway safety concerns.

Events I have investigated

19. In 2023, Mrs T started renting out one of the Barns as tourist accommodation via “Air B and B”. Mrs X reported this to the Authority because she was concerned about increased traffic caused by the numbers of cars using one of the access drives. It leads out onto a busy main road and visibility is limited. She also reported her neighbour’s failure stop up one of the access roads that had been specified in the 2005 planning application.
20. The Authority carried out an investigation. It conducted a site visit and spoke to Mrs T directly and through her planning consultant. The enforcement team also sought advice on the planning history of the site.
21. In January 2025, the Council served Mrs T with a PCN. This required her to provide information about the use of the Barn. In response to her answers, she was told she needed to make a planning application for change of use in February 2025.

Mrs X’s complaint

22. Mrs X complained to the Authority in September 2024 about the lack of action taken in response to her reported breaches of planning control by Mrs T. she also queried why Mrs T had not been forced to stop her holiday letting business, as she had been made to do with her shepherds’ huts several years before.
23. The Authority explained it was not a straightforward matter, and it was still assessing the history of the site and liaising with the highway’s authority about highway safety issues. The case had been assigned to the enforcement team in January 2024. It explained the erection of the shepherds’ huts was not the same as a possible change of use of a residential dwelling.
24. Mrs X was disappointed with this response, reminding the Council she reported the breaches in October 2024, and over a year had passed with no action having been taken. She explained that allowing the business to continue with the current access routes posed a serious risk because it was so dangerous. She reminded the Authority that her previous two applications were unsuccessful because of serious highway safety concerns.

The Authority’s position

25. In response to Mrs X’s further complaints (dealt with under stages two and three of its complaints procedure) and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Authority’s position is that:

• there was no breach of planning control regarding the stopping up of the access road because it was not a condition of the 2005 approval. Nor was there a breach by continued use of the access route. This was because it was already in existence and no development has taken place;
• the highway’s authority did not indicate there was clear and immediate risk of danger arising from allowing the Barn to be used as tourist accommodation that would warrant cessation of use;
• decisions about highway safety of the different access routes were based on information provided by the highway’s authority; and
• there was no bias in favor of Mrs T because her development was materially different to that of Mrs X.

Analysis

26. I have carefully considered the correspondence between Mrs X, Mrs T and the Authority. I have also reviewed Mrs X’s previous planning applications, including the decisions of the Planning Inspectorate. The correspondence makes clear Mrs X finds the Authority’s planning enforcement position about Mrs T’s use of the Barn and access route unacceptable and she has been treated more favourably that Mrs X was previously
27. However, we are not an appeal body. And we do not seek either to resolve every disputed issue between authorities and complainants or to secure responses to all a complainant’s queries. Our role is to consider whether there is evidence of fault in how authorities reach their decisions. Without evidence of fault, we cannot question an authority’s decision however strongly a complainant may disagree with it (see paragraph three of this statement).
28. In reaching its enforcement decision, the evidence showed the Authority had engaged with Mrs X and discussed her areas of concerns, visited the site, and liaised with the highway’s authority. These were steps I would expect the Authority to take in dealing with a reported breach of planning control. I saw no evidence of fault in how the Authority investigated the alleged breaches and reached its decisions.
29. I did not find evidence of bias in favour of Mrs T. To the contrary, the Authority took a similar approach to tourist development by both Mrs X and Mrs T in that it carried out an investigation and asked them both to submit planning applications. The Authority has explained why it was not appropriate to demand cessation of the Mrs X’s business and the Authority was entitled to be guided by the highway’s authority
30. However, I recognise the Authority took longer that it should have done to take allocate the case to an enforcement officer and carryout out a site visit or desktop analysis. Under the Authority’s policy, some initial work should take place within 15 days of a complaint being received. The case records show it took three months to allocate the case. It took a further three months for the Authority to carry out any meaningful work on the case. I consider this over delay of six months to be fault that caused avoidable frustration to Mrs X. I will make recommendations to remedy this personal injustice.
31. I did not find further fault with the Authority’s actions after April 2024 because I am satisfied it was taking appropriate and proportionate steps to progress the case. I am also satisfied it provided Mrs X with a comprehensive explanation about the decisions it had taken. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to interfere with this type or professional judgement, in absence of fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Authority has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Mrs X for the initial delay in progressing her report of breaches of planning control.
2. Remind relevant staff of the timelines set out in the Authority’s enforcement policy.
33. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I find fault causing injustice. The Authority to had agreed to take action to remedy the personal injustice to Mrs X and improve its service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman