Summary: The Council was at fault for deciding that Mrs X’s neighbour did not need prior approval for an agricultural building without considering its planning enforcement investigation about that building. However, this did not cause Mrs X an injustice because the Council’s planning enforcement investigation about the building is ongoing.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider all relevant information when it decided her neighbour’s agricultural building did not need prior approval. She also complained the Council delayed investigating her planning enforcement complaint, refused her request for information, and did not provide a meaningful redress. Mrs X said this caused distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information and documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. Part of Mrs X’s complaint is that the Council refused her request for information.
9. As I have said above, we normally consider it reasonable to expect people to refer their complaints about freedom of information to the Information Commissioner.
10. Mrs X said she knows about the Information Commissioner and will complain to them. For this reason, I have not investigated this part of Mrs X’s complaint.
11. I have investigated the parts of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision about prior approval, its planning enforcement investigation, and its complaint response.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

‘Prior notification’ applications

12. Not all development needs planning permission. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.
13. Some permitted development proposals need an application so the council can decide whether it can or should control certain parts of the development, such as design and materials issues or access to the highway. These applications are known as ‘prior notification’ applications.
14. Agricultural permitted development rights require applicants to tell councils they intend to exercise these rights before they start developing. They do this by submitting a prior notification application.

Planning enforcement

15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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

19. In early 2025, Mrs X reported a number of concerns about her neighbour’s farm to the Council’s planning enforcement team. I will refer to the neighbour as N. The Council addressed each of Mrs X’s concerns. It said it would not investigate her concerns. The Council explained its reasons for this and signposted her to the correct Council departments who could address the concerns.
20. In summer 2025, Mrs X asked the Council for an update. She attached an aerial photo of the site showing a building. Mrs X said she did not think the building had planning permission.
21. The Council replied and said it was investigating. It told Mrs X which step of its planning enforcement investigation process it was at. The Council told Mrs X it could not provide regular updates for ongoing enforcement investigations. But it said it would provide a summary of closure once it had concluded its investigation.
22. N submitted a prior notification application to the Council to build an agricultural building. N’s application asked the Council if their proposal was permitted development, and if so, did N need prior approval. The Council decided N did not need prior approval.
23. Mrs X complained that N had already built the building when they applied for prior notification.
24. In its complaint response, the Council told Mrs X it had considered N’s prior notification application in good faith. It said it was not aware of any ongoing enforcement investigation when it decided on N’s application.
25. The Council said the enforcement investigation and the planning application had slightly different site areas, so they had different reference numbers. The Council said it would remind officers to carefully check any planning history or related enforcement matters when considering applications.
26. The Council said N’s building did not have permitted development rights because it was already built when N submitted the application. The Council said it considered N’s application on the basis of the information N provided. The Council said N could not rely on the Council’s previous decision that N did not need prior approval.
27. The Council said it was investigating whether there were any planning breaches regarding N’s building. The Council told Mrs X it would issue N with planning contravention notices which asked N for information. Once the Council had that information, it would then decide on the appropriate course of action. The Council said it had not made an enforcement decision yet. It said it would tell Mrs X the outcome of its investigation.
28. Mrs X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

The Council’s decision about prior approval

29. Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider all relevant information when it decided her neighbour N’s agricultural building did not need prior approval. She said the Council did not consider that the building had already been built when it made this decision.
30. In the summer of 2025, Mrs X sent the Council the aerial photo showing the building had already been built. At that time, the Council said its planning enforcement team would investigate this. Two months later, the Council’s planning team decided N’s application did not need prior approval.
31. I understand that the Council can only work from information applicants provide. In this case, N did not tell the Council their application was for an existing building.
32. However, I find the Council could have done more to establish the planning history and related planning enforcement for the site. The Council told Mrs X that N could not rely on its decision that prior approval was not needed. Therefore, I find the Council would have made a different decision if it had known all the facts. This is fault.
33. However, the Council has taken action to address this in its planning enforcement investigation, which I address below. Therefore, I find the Council is addressing the result of the fault. For this reason, I do not find this fault caused Mrs X an injustice.

The planning enforcement investigation

34. Mrs X complained the Council delayed investigating her planning enforcement complaint. She said the Council initially told her there was no breach so it would not investigate, then said its enforcement investigation was ongoing. She said this showed inconsistency.
35. From the evidence I have seen, Mrs X complained about alleged planning breaches to the Council in early 2025. The Council addressed each of Mrs X’s concerns and explained why there was no planning breach, therefore it would not investigate. In this complaint, Mrs X did not mention that a building did not have planning permission.
36. The evidence I have seen shows that Mrs X asked the Council for an update in the summer of 2025. In this, Mrs X mentioned the building for the first time, asked the Council if the building had planning permission, and provided an aerial photo of the building. The Council immediately responded, saying it was investigating this.
37. I find the Council acted appropriately on the information Mrs X provided. I find no fault in the way the Council responded to Mrs X’s initial planning complaint. I find no fault with the Council’s decision that there was no breach to be investigated in that initial complaint.
38. After Mrs X provided the information about the building, the Council acted promptly to investigate this. I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate action so far in its enforcement investigation. I do not find any drift or delay. Therefore, I do not find fault. I note that the Council’s planning enforcement investigation is ongoing.
39. Mrs X is concerned that N is constructing more buildings while the Council’s enforcement investigation is ongoing. Any new complaints about new buildings need to go through the Council’s planning enforcement process and complaints process first, before we can consider it.

Complaint response

40. Mrs X complained the Council did not provide a meaningful redress in its complaint response. She said the Council only apologised: it did not provide a concrete action plan or a timescale.
41. I find the Council’s complaint response was appropriate. The Council was under no obligation to provide an action plan or a timescale to Mrs X. For this reason, I find no fault.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman