Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure a neighbouring property had the relevant planning permission before placing children there under the care of a care provider. He said the Council also delayed taking enforcement action. The Council was at fault for significant delays starting its enforcement investigation. The Council agreed to apologise and provide a symbolic financial remedy for the frustration and distress this caused Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure a neighbouring property had the relevant planning permission before placing children there under the care of a care provider. He said the Council also delayed taking enforcement action.
2. Mr X and his family suffered distress and sleepless nights over several months due to noise and anti-social behaviour from the property, with the police attending many times.

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 recommend 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I investigated the actions of the Council’s planning enforcement service once Mr X reported the alleged planning breach. I did not investigate the complaint the Council’s children’s services in placed children in accommodation without the relevant planning permission. That aspect of the complaint is being considered as part of a separate investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

9. Planning uses of land or ‘use classes’ are set out in regulations. They cover a range of typical uses, like residential, business, industrial and commercial.
10. Planning permission is usually needed to change a use from one class to another. Whether a change of use has occurred is a matter of ‘fact and degree’ for the Council to decide.

Planning Enforcement

11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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)

The Council’s planning enforcement policy

15. The Council's policy on the enforcement of planning and building control is to deal firstly with physical danger, health or safety problems. Then to deal with those issues that are causing demonstrable harm to the enjoyment of people's lives, property or the environment.
16. The Council aims to investigate complaints within 20 working days and respond informally by telephone or e-mail with an outline of what it might achieve. Once the Council has looked more fully into the complaint to establish precisely the nature of the breach of control it will decide what action to take. It may decide to serve notices, but it would prefer to resolve problems by negotiation.

What happened

17. 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.
18. Mr X contacted the Council’s planning enforcement team on 22 October 2024 to report a care provider was using a neighbouring residential house as a children’s home without the necessary planning permission. This was following noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour from residents of the house.
19. Another resident also complained the house was being used as a care home for teenagers on 29 April 2025. They said the police attended numerous times to speak to the teenagers or their visitors.
20. The Council inspected the house on 30 May 2025, finding a planning breach. It wrote to the owner on 2 June advising it found a material change of use occurred at the house from a residential dwelling to a residential institution. This change was a breach and needed planning permission. It said the owner may make a retrospective application to regularise the breach or they were at risk of enforcement action.
21. Mr X logged many incidents between June and August 2025 of banging noise or loud music late at night, and of the police attending the neighbouring house. This was sometimes in the early hours. He also reported of drug use, and of residents of the neighbouring house using his driveway for access without permission.
22. The owner made a planning application in July 2025 seeking retrospective permission for the change of use from a residential dwelling to supported accommodation for young people.
23. Mr X chased the Council for an update on its enforcement investigation on 15 July 2025. He asked whether the Council was going to do anything about the unauthorised use for the past 10 months. The Council said enforcement action was on hold while it considered the planning application. It also said it could not act over the fact the breach had been ongoing for a long time.
24. The Council consulted on the application in August 2025 and received over two hundred objections from members of the public. Objections were on noise, disturbances, fear of crime, feeling unsafe, and regular emergency service call outs. The Council therefore told the owner it would be recommending refusal of the application.
25. The owner told the Council they were no longer using the house as supported living accommodation at the end of August 2025, and the children previously placed there had moved. They also said they did not intend to use the house to provide care in the future. The owner then withdrew their planning application on 1 September 2025. The Council was satisfied this remedied the planning breach and closed its enforcement investigation.

My investigation

26. Mr X told us the situation of living beside the supported living facility caused constant stress and worry, as well as sleepless nights and being woken by anti-social behaviour, noise, and police presence.
27. Mr X said he was concerned the Council told the owner the application would be rejected and advised them to withdraw it so they can operate from the house again in future. Mr X would like the Council to formally reject the owner’s planning application to make clear the property cannot be used for supported living.
28. The Council told me its principal planning enforcement officer was unexpectedly on long term sickness when Mr X reported the alleged planning breach, meaning its service was limited to a single officer. This led to significant backlogs and delays responding to queries. The Council said a different member of the public raised the matter again and it registered the complaint on 13 May 2025.
29. The Council recognised there was a delay investigating the complaint, but said there were extenuating circumstances. It said during this time it set out on its website and by email auto response that it was subject to a backlog. It also said planning enforcement is discretionary, guided by proportionality and expediency.

Analysis

30. The Council aims to investigate and respond to planning enforcement complaints within 20 working days. The Council did not register a complaint for the property in question until 7 months after Mr X’s complaint. That is fault.
31. Once the Council registered the complaint, it visited the site in just over two weeks. It identified the breach and issued a warning to the owner, who made a planning application within about a month. The time from registering the enforcement complaint to receiving the planning application was about two months.
32. The unauthorised use of the property stopped by the time the owner withdrew the application on 1 September 2025. That means the time taken to remedy the breach from registering the complaint took less than four months. That is a reasonable timeframe and would not be fault, but for the initial delay.
33. It is appreciated the Council had staffing issues which were outside of its control. I also appreciate enforcement action is discretionary. However, the Council must investigate enforcement complaints, and it is logical to deduce that, but for the staffing issues and delays, the Council would have been able to resolve the situation within four months– just as it did once it finally opened the enforcement investigation in this case.
34. The Council’s delays starting the investigation delayed the bringing about of a resolution by 7 months. The Council is not responsible for the noise and anti-social behaviour itself, but its delays meant Mr X and his household continued to experience the issues, and associated distress, for 7 months longer than they likely would have done if the Council had acted without fault. This caused Mr X and his household avoidable frustration and distress which the Council should provide a symbolic remedy for.
35. I saw no evidence the Council advised the owner to withdraw their planning application. Contrary to Mr X’s concerns, I saw evidence the Council sought assurances from the owner about their plans, and that they would not operate supported living from the house in future.
36. We cannot tell the Council to reject a planning application. The owner withdrew the application before a decision, which they were entitled to do, and there was no fault by the Council in this regard.
37. I have considered whether this complaint indicates a wider problem with the Council’s planning enforcement service. I am satisfied the delay arose from specific circumstances at the relevant time rather than systemic failure and therefore do not recommend any service improvement.

Back to top

Agreed Action

38. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology.
• Pay £200 to Mr X to recognise the avoidable frustration and distress caused by the delay.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

40. I found the Council at fault for significant delays starting the enforcement investigation. The Council agreed to apologise and provide a symbolic financial remedy for the frustration and distress this caused Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman