Elected Member Briefing - Planning Enforcement

About this Briefing Note

Report by: Kristian Smith, Service Manager: Development Management and Building Standards

Date: 23 June 2026

Subject: Planning Enforcement Statistics, Outcomes and Complaints

Responsible Officer: Sean Panton, Team Leader: Development Management (Major Applications and Enforcement)

Details

Purpose

A revised Planning Enforcement Charterwas approved by the Economy and Infrastructure Committee on 22 April 2026. This Briefing Note is being prepared in response to requests for information and questions raised at that meeting. Following further discussions with the relevant councillors, the information requested has been clarified and refined, resulting in a bespoke dataset covering the following:

• The number of enforcement cases were opened in 2025
• The number of enforcement cases were closed in 2025
• Reasons for cases closures in 2025
• The number of Enforcement Notices served in 2025
• The nature of the matters to which Notices served in 2025 relate
• The number of Stage 1 complaints received about Planning Enforcement, their subject matter and outcomes
• The number of Stage 2 complaints received about Planning Enforcement, their subject matter and outcomes
• The number of SPSO complaints received about Planning Enforcement, their subject matter and outcomes.

This briefing note demonstrates that there is significant recorded activity within the Planning Enforcement team, with a broadly balanced workflow between incoming and resolved cases. A small number of cases are, however, complex and can remain ongoing for extended periods.

Complaint levels are low relative to overall workload. Where complaints have been upheld, findings indicate that the overall approach is sound, with only two cases relating to delays in response times being upheld.  

Should any further information or clarification be required, please contact Kristian Smith, Service Manager, or Sean Panton, Team Leader.

Briefing information

The work of the Planning Enforcement Team is wide-ranging and highly public-facing, often involving multiple stakeholders with differing and sometimes opposing views. These can include those responsible for the development, individuals who have raised concerns, and other interested parties.

This briefing provides an overview of workloads and outcomes. However, it should be noted that the information presented does not capture the full extent of the team's activities. In particular, a significant number of enquiries are triaged and determined not to constitute a breach of planning control; these are not formally recorded and therefore are not reflected in the dataset.

To ensure consistency and comparability, the data presented uses 2025 (1 January to 31 December) as the reference period. For reporting purposes, the number of working days within the year has been standardised at 250.

Number of enforcement cases

Table 1 (below) shows that more than one case was registered each working day (293). However monthly workflows vary, with no particular pattern evident, although October - January are generally less intense.

Completed enforcement investigations

Table 2 shows the number of investigations completed (cases closed) is largely reflective of those registered (293 v 279), with a less than 5% variance (4.78%). This variance may also reflect that a small number of cases are very complex and take a significant amount of time to progress, so concluded beyond the sample year - indeed some may never be fully resolved. December is the shortest working month and sees a high level of annual leave within the team, this may also reflect a lower number of cases being closed.

Note: The cases closed over this period are not exclusive to cases that were opened in the same year.

Reasons why cases were closed

As is to be anticipated, the nature of cases is wide ranging, and this is reflected in the reasoning for closing them. The data in Table 3 (below) shows that the majority of investigations found that there was 'no breach of planning control' (78 of 279 or 28%), generally meaning that on reviewing the case planning permission was not required.

The next largest reasoning being that, the breach of planning control was resolved (71 or 25.5%). This often resulting after informal actions by officers and the 'developing party' to resolve the breach/harm. An example that the unauthorised use stops or work is undertaken to take the development below the threshold requiring of planning permission.

Other significant reasons were 'no significant planning harm' (55 or 20%) - although this is a judgement call and often not accepted by complainants (the four cases in the final column could also be added to this, with an application having been invited but not required by a notice). In effect, it is the view of officers that the harm resulting does not proportionately warrant any further action but appreciating a breach of planning control may remain.

The final reason of any scale shows that cases can be closed when planning permission for the unauthorised development is approved (39 or 14%). One further case could be added to this figure, as the situation is similar - 'Permission/Consent Approved Retro'; it should also be noted that the timeline from a case being opened to planning permission being granted can be a number of months - reflected in timescales of several months, if not longer.

Other reasons for cases closing are small cover single digit numbers: eight cases were duplicates of others (multiple contacts can be made on the same issue and are not always identified during triage); a further eight were found to be immune from action, this can relate to development that occurred some time ago and where the ability to take action is time-barred. In these cases the property owner may be advised to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development (Existing/Proposed), although they are under no obligation to do so; six cases were closed after Notices were complied with; finally nine saw other actions by the Council allow the case to be closed, this may reflect that the property was PKC owned or the issue was better dealt with by another service.

Enforcement notices servied in 2025

Turning to the number and type of 'Notices' served, 81 Notices were served in 2025. Again, these were of a variety of types and reasons. The largest single type (28 of 81 or 34.5%) related to 'Planning Contravention Notices' (PCN), these used as a means of gathering information and often an early but formal step in a more complex investigation.

Then 19 (23.5%) Enforcement Notices (EN) were served, these requiring actions to address a breach of planning control. 12 Section 272 Notices were served, these similar to a PCN but specifically requiring details of the legal owner.

Next were 8x Section 33 Notices (S33), formally requiring a planning application to be made. Six Breach of Condition Notices (BCN) required action to comply with a condition of planning permission. Three Notices requiring action in relation to a listed building (LBN). Two Amenity Notices (AN), requiring actions to tidy a site which is causing significant harm to an area.

Finally, one each of a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) - imposing a fine for non-compliance with a Notice; a Stop Notice, requiring all activity at a site to cease and require to be accompanied by an Enforcement Notice; and a Temporary Stop Notice (TSN) to stop activity for up to 28 days and allowing further investigations to take place without further harm. 

It should be noted that very careful consideration is taken in respect of serving Notices, to ensure that the approach is both proportionate and consistent, whilst also reflective of the overall harm occurring. The full breakdown of each type of notice and number issued is below:

Complaints

Given the level of public interest in planning enforcement matters and the fact that professional judgement and discretion is often applied, it can be the case that a party with an interest is aggrieved during or after the process. As such complaints, the majority containing multiple points, are received and investigated.  

Table 5 shows the data associated to Stage 1 Complaints. It is noted that of the 11x Stage 1 complaints in 2025 only one was upheld and this on a point that related to the report of the potential breach of planning control not being acknowledged within five working days.

The next step in the complaints procedure is 'Stage 2' and 4x complaints were escalated by the complainant to this level, as a result of their dissatisfaction with the Stage 1 outcome.  Again, only one complaint was partially upheld, this on a lack of response to the complaint from the Executive Director, while the outcome of the investigation was found to be sound.

The final step in the Councils complaints procedure is the option for the complainant to escalate the matter to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), the ultimate and third stage of the complaints process. In 2025, two cases reached this level, although neither saw the SPSO take the matter forward, the SPSO either being satisfied with the responses via the Councils complaints process, or as a result of the failure of the complainant to engage in their investigation.