Summary: We found no fault on the complaint of Mr S and Ms T about the Council failing to follow procedures after receiving reports about a mobile home park. I am satisfied the Council acted on the reports of breaches of planning consent, for example, and investigated and considered the evidence before making its decisions on them.

The complaint

1. Mr S and Ms T complained the Council failed to follow the correct procedures about various issues at a mobile home park, including a potential material change of use, a culverted watercourse, and a failure to review licence conditions. As a result, they were caused distress and lost confidence in the Council’s willingness to take enforcement action against the site owner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated this complaint:

• from September 2022. This was because I considered the Council’s stage 1 response to their complaint was sent in September 2023. This means any complaint before September 2022 was late; and
• up to March 2024. This was the date the Council issued the stage 2 response under its complaints procedure. It means the Council had the opportunity to respond to their complaints up to this date, but not after.

7. I have not investigated any complaint about disputes concerning encroachment onto land (both on and off the site), trespass, or the boundary. This was because these are not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Mr S and Mr T had the right to pursue these matters through the courts. I have seen no good reason why we should exercise discretion to investigate these complaints.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered all the information sent by Mr S and Ms T, along with the Council’s response to our enquiries. I sent a copy of the draft decision to Mr S and Mr T as well as the Council. I considered their responses.
9. With its response to our enquiries, the Council provided information which it required to remain confidential because it contained details of third parties along with legal advice. This meant I was unable to disclose its contents or refer to it directly. I appreciate this meant Mr S and Ms T had to rely on my assessment of the evidence I have seen, without seeing it themselves.

Back to top

What I found

Model Standards 2008 for Caravan Sites in England (April 2008)

10. The Secretary of State may set out model standards (the standards) for the lay-out and provision of facilities, services, and equipment for caravan sites, or particular types of caravan sites. It includes those used as permanent homes. When deciding what, if any, conditions to attach to a site licence, the local authority shall have regard to any standards.
11. The standards, ‘should be considered when applying licence conditions to new sites and sites that have been substantially redeveloped’. Where a current licence condition is adequate in serving its purpose, the authority should not normally apply the new standards. In deciding whether to apply new standards, the local authority must consider the benefit the standards would achieve and the interests of both residents and site owners, including the cost of complying with the new or altered condition.
12. The standards set out requirements for: the positioning of a caravan, for example, from a site boundary; roads allowing adequate access for emergency vehicles; adequate lighting; a concrete base or hard standing for every unit of site. This was not an exhaustive list.

Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person (England) Regulations 2020

13. The Regulations prevent the use of land as a residential mobile home site unless a local authority is satisfied the owner or manager of the site is a fit and proper person to manage it. The aim is to improve the standards of park (mobile) home site management.

Land Drainage Act 1991

14. Under section 23, no person shall erect any obstruction to the flow of any ordinary watercourse or raise or otherwise alter any such obstruction, without the written consent of the drainage board (or Lead Local Flood Authority).
15. The Council is the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) which means it is responsible for reducing the risk of flooding from surface water, groundwater, and ordinary watercourses. It has responsibility to investigate, mitigate, and plan for flooding which does not come from statutory main rivers or reservoirs.

Planning enforcement

16. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. Councils should not take enforcement action just because there was a breach of planning control.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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 2023, paragraph 59)

What happened

20. Mr S lived next to a mobile home site (the site) while Ms T was a resident of the site. Since 2015, all residential mobile home sites, and mixed sites, need to be licenced under the Mobile Homes Act 2013. The Council was the licensing authority for the area in which the site was located and could attach conditions to the licence. The aim of conditions was to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the site’s residents.
21. The site owner also had to apply to the Council for a person to be responsible for the site. This person needed assessing as a Fit and Proper Person.
22. In 2021, the site was bought by a new owner. Since then, the Council received numerous complaints about the site which included concerns about: licencing; planning and building control breaches; harassment from the owner; fraud and collusion; watercourse management; boundary disputes.
23. Mr S and Ms T complained about the Council failing to:

• act on works at the site being done under permitted development with no prior approval;
• carry out a comprehensive licence review of the site in 2016 or of the conditions in 2021;
• act when culverting (pipe installation) was done, without consent, of an open watercourse which provided drainage in January 2023. This was along a boundary with Mr S’s land. He believed this increased the risk of flooding to the site and neighbouring properties;
• act when a 70-year-old hedge surrounding the site was destroyed in September 2022; and
• act when the site erected bases for new mobile homes despite being within 10 metres of the watercourse and within an area at risk from flooding.

Licence: caravan site

24. Mr S and Ms T complained the Council failed to carry out a comprehensive review of the conditions of the licence in 2021 when the site was sold. The previous licence was in place from 2016.
25. When the site was sold in 2021, the Council had to consider whether it should agree to the transfer of the licence to the new owner when it received the application.
26. The Council reviewed the history of the site and decided there was nothing to show the existing conditions were not fit for purpose. At the time, no redevelopment had taken place and nor was it a new site. This was why it did not change the conditions when it agreed the transfer. It could have refused the transfer but under the standards, it had to consider whether it was appropriate to apply them.
27. For the site to comply with the standards at the time, substantial works were needed. The guidance stated it was for the Council to decide if it was appropriate to apply them to an existing site. To comply, it was likely a number of plots would need moving which would impact on drainage connections and other services. The Council decided it would not require these changes when there was no evidence suggesting the previous conditions were inadequate.
28. The Council could change the conditions at any time and once aware of later redevelopment, it started to review them with the intention of including them in to any future licence.
29. The Council explained it was created from five other councils (district and a county council) to form a single unitary authority in 2020. It accepted its policy for caravan site parks and licensing has not been coordinated but was now drafting a co-ordinated policy.
30. The Council also received an application from the site owner to be the fit and proper person to manage the site but refused the application. An alternative could be appointed as a substitute by the site owner.
31. The Council confirmed there was no current investigation of the licence for the site. It has paused implementing/progressing applying updated conditions at the moment.

My findings

32. I found no fault on this complaint. The Council considered whether the previous conditions needed altering taking account of the fact this was not a new site and nor had there been redevelopment there. It decided they did not and were fit for their purpose. It also took account of the site history, the works that would be needed had it decided to incorporate the standards into the licence at this point, and the implications this would have.
33. Once aware of claims of redevelopment, the Council started to review the licence’s conditions. I understand the co-ordinated policy was being drafted. It has provided reasons why it paused applying updated conditions.

Planning: enforcement

34. The Council received complaints from Mr S and Ms T about its lack of enforcement action about:

• Hedgerows: Mr S reported hedging was removed by the site owner down one boundary length and its replacement was placed to the west of the culvert, which was his land, not the east, which was the site’s land.

• Article 4 Direction: Mr S complained the Council allowed unauthorised development to take place under permitted development with no prior approval, such as a fence along one side of the boundary. There was an Article 4 Direction for the site. This concerned permitted development rights which are rights to carry out certain types of development without the need to apply for planning consent. So long as the development complied with the requirements under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, it has planning consent. Some development needs the Council’s ‘prior approval’. This means if the development required this approval, the developer must send an application to the Council for approval before starting any works.

This Direction limits or removes permitted development right from sites or areas. The previous Direction was due to expire in July 2023. The Council renewed it early the following year.

• Trees: Mr S reported the felling of protected trees.

• Creation of hardstanding areas/plots: Mr S complained new bases were created on site for homes without consent.

• Drainage: Mr S was concerned about the adequacy of drainage on site.

• Change of use of the site.

35. I have seen evidence, including photographs and a report, which showed the Council considered whether it needed to take enforcement action for the reported breaches. It decided not to take enforcement action at that point in time. I am unable to disclose the reasoning behind this decision as the Council required it to remain confidential.
36. I have also seen information sent for legal advice about enforcement.

My findings

37. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. I am satisfied the Council acted on reports about the hedgerow removal which has since been reinstated. The Council decided to take no further action as it had served a Hedgerow Replacement Notice and the site owner had planted a replacement hedge complying with the requirement for species, height, support, and spacing. The Council told Mr S about its decision to close the case on this basis. The evidence satisfies me the Council acted on these reports and properly considered what it needed to do. I found no fault on this complaint.
2. I am also satisfied the Council considered the report about fencing in terms of the Article 4 Direction and decided to take no action on it. I have seen evidence setting out its reasoning behind this decision. I found no fault in the way the Council decided this report.
3. The Council investigated the report about protected trees. I have seen photographs showing the trees in question along with a record setting out the reasoning behind its decision not to take any further action by its planning team. The Council was satisfied protected trees had not been felled. I found no fault on this complaint.
4. The Council found no evidence of flooding on site. Again, I am satisfied this report was considered by the Council. I found no fault on this complaint.
5. The Council investigated the claim about a change of use/hard standing and decided it was not a material change of use but rather an intensification. I am satisfied the Council considered the hard standing areas. The number of units had not increased but this work was needed to modernise the site. I found no fault on this complaint.
38. Having read the evidence sent to us, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the need for enforcement action on each of these reports. In reaching this decision, the Council took account of the expediency of acting in the public interest. It considered whether planning consent would have been granted, the impact on residents’ amenities, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the safety and use of the highway, along with onsite parking, and flooding.

Watercourse

39. Mr S and Ms T are unhappy about the Council failing to act against the site owner who replaced a watercourse (or ditch) with a culvert (covered pipe) along one boundary. In addition, they are concerned this culvert will increase the risk of flooding.
40. The Council was the LLFA and had certain enforcement powers. This included ensuring the free passage of water along ordinary watercourses by prohibiting the erection of an obstruction, for example, which impeded its flow. Under its Land Drainage Enforcement Policy, it reserved the right to take enforcement action where it considered an ordinary watercourse was in such a condition that the proper flow of water was impeded and was causing, or likely to cause, harm to those receiving the flow.
41. The Council received the report about this culvert in January 2023. The works needed consent under section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. It confirmed there was no land drainage consent for this work, nor planning consent. As there was no consent, the works amounted to a nuisance.
42. Officers visited the site and discussed the case with Mr S and Ms T. The investigation required the Council to: i) decide whether the work needed land drainage consent and whether an application for consent was made; ii) gather information and evidence to understand the extent of the works and justification for works without land drainage consent; iii) decide if the works would cause hardship to anyone receiving the flow as set out in its policy.
43. The Council decided not to take enforcement at that time after consideration of the evidence and concluding the works would not impede the flow of water. The Council told Mr S and Ms T of this decision and explained its enforcement powers were discretionary.

My findings

44. I found no fault on this complaint. This was because I am satisfied the Council properly considered the reports about the culverting, carried out an investigation, and reached a decision after considering relevant evidence.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I found no fault on the complaint made by Mr S and Ms T against the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman