Summary: Mr F complained about how the Council dealt with his report of a breach of planning control by his neighbour and the outcome of its investigation. We found the Council at fault for causing an unnecessary delay to investigate the breach. However, there was no fault in the process it followed to reach its view. It therefore made a decision it was entitled to make. The Council should apologise to Mr F and make payment to remedy the distress and uncertainty he experienced as a result of its delays.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr F, complained about how the Council dealt with his reported breach of planning control by his neighbour for allowing a residential caravan on his land. He said it was wrong to reach its decision to allow the breach to continue for a further six months as it had failed to properly consider his views, the impact on his amenity, and evidence showing his neighbour’s intentions to run a campsite.
2. He also said it wrongly closed its enforcement investigation when it had identified a breach of planning control.
3. As a result, Mr F said he has experienced distress and uncertainty. He also said he had time and trouble to bring his concerns and lost trust in the Council’s ability to resolve the issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr F’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr F and considered the information he provided:
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• considered the relevant law, guidance and policy to the complaint.
9. Mr F 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

10. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
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 July 2021, paragraph 59)

12. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. Councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. 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. 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.
14. However, 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.

Council’s Planning Enforcement Policy

15. The Council’s Policy set out how it will consider reports of planning control breaches. The process is set out in a nine-step flowchart which says:
• Steps 1-3 (2 weeks) – The Council will log the reported breach, triage the case and consider if further investigation is required. If so, an acknowledgement will be sent to the complainant.
• Steps 4-5 (9 weeks) – the Council will investigate the concerns to determine whether a breach of planning control is occurring. If no breach is occurring, it will close the case and inform the complainant. If a breach is found, it will move to step 6.
• Steps 6-7 (16 weeks) – The Council will consider appropriate outcomes to resolve the breach. This may be for a planning application to be made, agree remedial works or to remove the unauthorised works. If negotiation with the person causing the breach is successful, the case will be closed and it will inform the complainant of the outcome. If negotiation is unsuccessful, it will continue to step 8.
• Steps 8-9 (30 weeks) - The Council will consider whether formal action is expedient and proportionate in the circumstances of each case. It may then decide to take formal action.
16. The Policy explains its timescales to complete the steps in its investigations are approximate and in complicated cases it may take longer.
17. The Council says it will not provide updates on reported planning control breaches during investigations.

What happened

18. Mr F lives in a rural area along a small road. The land across the road is owned by his neighbour, Mr X.
19. In late 2021 Mr F told the Council Mr X had allowed a residential caravan on his land without relevant planning permission. He said the caravan was placed opposite to his home and this impacted his amenity.
20. The Council acknowledged Mr F’s reported planning control breach. It explained it would investigate in line with its Policy and shared its Flowchart with him. It also said it would not provide updates, but it would inform him about the outcome of its investigation once this was concluded.
21. Over the following 10 months Mr F chased the Council for updates and progress on his planning enforcement concerns. He also told the Council:
• about previous planning control breaches on Mr X’s land which included caravans and tents. He said he had also reported these to the Council but by the time the Council inspected the breaches had ceased;
• Mr X had advertisements on social media for a caravan site on his land, which showed his intent of using the land for such purposes;
• a second caravan had been placed on Mr X land in Spring 2022; and
• he was receiving post addressed to the occupants of the caravan.
22. The Council acknowledged or responded to each of Mr F’s communications. However, it explained it had visited the site, but could not provide updates on its enforcement investigation. It did share the stage his case was at on its flowchart.
23. In August 2022 the Council sent Mr X a Planning Contravention Notice, which explained the Council believed the caravan had been placed without required planning permission. It also shared a questionnaire which Mr X should complete for the Council to decide what action to take against the breach of planning control.
24. Mr X completed the questionnaire and returned this to the Council.
25. In November 2022 the Council discussed the breach of planning control with Mr X. The Council’s officer proposed to resolve the breach informally through agreement with Mr X. This was for the caravan to be removed by summer 2023 to allow for the occupiers of the caravan to find alternative accommodation, which was agreed with Mr X.
26. The Council told Mr F it had completed its enforcement investigation and closed the case. It said it had found Mr X had breached planning control by allowing a residential caravan to be placed on his land without relevant planning permission. It had resolved the breach informally as set out in National Planning Policy Guidance. This meant Mr X had to ensure the caravan was removed by June 2023. It also explained this was to allow for the occupants to find alternative suitable accommodation.
27. Mr F was not satisfied with the action the Council had taken and complained. He said it:
• had failed to take any action over 11 months;
• had only made a verbal agreement with Mr X, there was therefore no guarantee the breach of planning control would cease after June 2023;
• should have asked Mr X to move the caravan elsewhere on his land away from neighbouring properties, or to move the caravan to an approved caravan site;
• should have confirmed with the occupiers of the caravan whether they had elsewhere to live;
• had failed to consider previous planning breaches;
• had not spoken with or visited Mr F throughout the enforcement investigation, he felt it had failed to consider the planning control breach’s impact on his amenity; and
• should not have closed its enforcement case when no action had been taken and the matter had not been resolved.
28. In response the Council did not uphold Mr F complaint. It explained it had found Mr X had breached planning control by allowing the residential caravan on his land, but it had found the best way to resolve this was through informal action. It found its action was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It also said it:
• disagreed it had failed to consider Mr F’s views, the impact on his amenity, and previous planning breach concerns. It explained it had taken a balanced view of circumstances for Mr F, Mr X and the occupiers;
• had discussed individual circumstances with Mr X and the occupiers of the caravan but could not disclose this information to Mr F for data protection reasons. However, Mr X had said he had allowed friends to stay on his land previously under permitted development rules for a short period but did not plan to use his land as a campsite;
• would be inappropriate to ask Mr X to move the caravan elsewhere on his land as this could give rise to criticism or subsequent challenge if formal action was required; and
• found informal action was likely to be quicker, but in the event Mr X did not remove the caravan by the agreed date, it could still take formal action.
29. Mr F remained dissatisfied with the Council’s decision and how it had handled his planning enforcement concerns. He asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.
30. Since Mr F brought his case to the Ombudsman, Mr X has removed the caravan from his land by the agreed date in Summer 2023.
31. In response to my enquiries, the Council shared evidence it had a notification system in place to ensure it checked compliance on closed cases where actions were required. It had visited the site shortly after the agreed deadline and confirmed the caravan had been removed. It also explained it had found the caravan had breached planning control, but it did not find this caused a significant impact on Mr F amenity as it was partially screened by a hedge and due to its distance from his home.
32. Mr F has since raised concerns to the Council about Mr X’s intentions to run a campsite and asked the Council if it intended to do further compliance checks. The Council confirmed the case is now closed and it will not do further checks, unless a new breach of planning control is brought to its attention.

Analysis and findings

33. Mr F raised issues around Mr X allowing tents and caravans on his site prior to his planning enforcement concerns in December 2021. This is more than 12 months before he brought those concerns to our attention and is therefore late. I have seen no good reason to exercise my discretion to consider how the Council handled his previous concerns as these should have been brought to our attention sooner.
34. However, I will exercise discretion to consider Mr F’s planning enforcement concerns about the caravan from late 2021 to July 2023 when the Council completed its compliance check. This is because Mr F continued to chase the Council for updates, and it was first in November 2022 the Council shared its investigation outcome with Mr F.

Did the Council cause delay?

35. Mr F reported Mr X’s breach of planning control to the Council in late 2021 which meant the Council should have reached its view on whether a breach was identified around late February 2022 according to its Enforcement Policy.
36. I acknowledge the Council’s Policy says its timescales are approximate and some complicated investigations may take longer. However, I found the Council caused a significant unnecessary delay. This is because:
• Mr F’s reported breach was not complicated, and the evidence shows the Council failed to take any, or only limited, action to investigate his concerns until August 2022, which was 25 weeks longer than set out in its Policy;
• the Council informed Mr F it had identified a planning control breach and reached an outcome on its investigation in November 2022. This was 31 weeks longer than the timescales set out in its Policy; and
• I have seen no evidence the Council informed or explained to Mr F why its investigation was delayed, or when it may reach an outcome.
37. I am satisfied this caused Mr F some distress due to the uncertainty the delay caused and a loss of trust in the Council’s ability to properly consider his concerns.

Was there fault in the way the Council communicated with Mr F?

38. Mr F continued to chase the Council throughout for updates and outcomes.
39. The Council’s Policy says it will not provide updates on planning enforcement investigations. It will only acknowledge the concern and share its outcome once its investigation is completed.
40. While the Council was therefore not required to provide Mr F with updates, it was clear there were delays in the investigation. I would therefore expect the Council to at least share some information about the stage its investigation was at based on its flowchart.
41. The evidence shows the Council did inform Mr F on some occasions what steps its investigation was at and shared its flowchart with him, and it explained why it could not provide further information. I found the Council communicated in line with its Policy with Mr F. It was therefore not at fault for how it communicated with him, other than regarding the delays in its investigation as set out above.
42. In addition, while Mr F wanted to discuss the case with the Council or for the Council to visit him, there is no requirement on the Council to do so. It is for the Council to decide if this was necessary. It found it was not, and this was a view it was entitled to reach.

Was there fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view on the planning enforcement investigation?

43. Mr F did not agree with the outcome of the Council’s investigation, which was for Mr X to ensure the caravan was removed in Summer 2023. He felt it had not properly considered the impact on his amenity.
44. The evidence shows the Council conducted a site visit and found a breach of planning control had taken place. It also considered the caravan’s distance to Mr F’s home, its visibility and when it was occupied. It found the breach did not cause significant impact on Mr F’s amenity.
45. I found the Council had therefore considered Mr F’s reported breach of planning control and how this impacted him. It was therefore entitled to reach its view.
46. Also, I found the Council’s decision to consider informal action with Mr X and the occupiers of the caravan was in line with National Planning Policy Guidance, as this recommends for informal negotiation, and formal action to be used as a last resort. This is because:
• Mr X engaged with the Council and gave assurances the caravan would be removed by the proposed deadline;
• while Mr F shared evidence Mr X were posting advertisement on his land for a campsite, Mr X told the Council he did not intend to run a campsite;
• the Council considered the personal circumstances of the occupiers of the caravan, including the time it may take them to find alternative accommodation; and
• the Council found the caravan had a limited impact on Mr F’s amenity.
47. I acknowledge Mr F feels the Council should have taken stronger action in late 2022 and it should not have agreed for the breach of planning control to continue until summer 2023. However, as I have not found fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make.

Compliance with the agreement and Mr F’s further concerns

48. Mr F said the Council was wrong to close the enforcement investigation when it reached its informal agreement with Mr X, and he later shared information Mr X may be applying for certificates to run a campsite.
49. I found the Council was correct to close the case when it reached its informal agreement with Mr X as this was in line with the process set out in its Policy. It also notified Mr F.
50. The evidence shows the Council has a system in place to alert its enforcement team to check compliance cases where such agreements are in place. The system alerted its staff, and a compliance check was completed shortly after the agreed deadline. I found the Council was therefore not at fault for closing its investigation.
51. I acknowledge Mr F’s concerns that Mr X may have applied for permission to run a campsite since the Council closed its investigation. However, such matters are not relevant for planning enforcement investigations. The Council can only consider whether relevant planning permission or exemptions are in place when an alleged breach is taking place. As no breach is currently taking place, the Council cannot consider this matter.
52. If Mr X applies for permission to run a campsite, Mr F can exercise his right to make objections to the application.

Back to top

Agreed action

53. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr F, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mr F and pay £200 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he experienced as a result of its unnecessary delays in its planning enforcement investigation.
54. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1. review how it ensures it can meet the approximate timescales set out in its Enforcement Policy and Flowchart for uncomplicated cases, including how it informs complainants about delays which may occur to limit their expectations.
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I have completed my investigation with a finding the Council caused a significant unnecessary delay in its enforcement investigation, which caused Mr F distress. However, there was no fault in the process it followed to reach it decision. It was therefore entitled to reach its view.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman