Planning enforcement penalties and how courts set fines

A planning enforcement prosecution in England can carry an unlimited fine, and the court is required to take account of any financial benefit the offender gained from the breach. That is the position under section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which makes it an offence to fail to comply with an enforcement notice. Since 12 March 2015, when section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 removed the cap on level 5 fines, there has been no ceiling on summary conviction for that offence. For a landlord running an unauthorised house in multiple occupation or an extra flat, the exposure is the rent, not a token penalty.

Which breaches carry a criminal penalty

Not every planning breach is a crime. Carrying out development without permission is not in itself an offence, which is the point most often misunderstood. What creates criminal liability is ignoring the formal step the council has taken.

• Failing to comply with an enforcement notice after the compliance period has expired is an offence under section 179. The offence can be committed by the owner and, separately, by a person having control of or an interest in the land.
• Breaching a stop notice or a temporary stop notice is an offence, and these bite immediately rather than after an appeal period.
• Failing to comply with a breach of condition notice is an offence under section 187A, with no right of appeal to the Inspectorate against the notice itself.
• Unauthorised works to a listed building are an offence in their own right under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, without any notice being served first.
• Contravening a tree preservation order by cutting down, uprooting, lopping or wilfully damaging a protected tree is an offence under section 210 of the 1990 Act.
• Failing to comply with a section 215 notice about the condition of land is an offence.

The listed building and tree offences are the two that catch people who thought they were safe because no notice had arrived. They need none.

Whether the underlying work needed permission at all is the prior question, and it is worth settling properly. Many disputes about outbuildings and plant turn out to be about the limits in the General Permitted Development Order rather than about enforcement, in the way that air source heat pumps and permitted development limits illustrates.

How courts approach the fine

Two features of section 179 matter more than the headline maximum.

First, subsection (9) requires the court, in determining the amount of the fine, to have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to the person convicted in consequence of the offence. A fine is therefore not calibrated to the inconvenience caused. It is calibrated to what the breach was worth.

Second, the offence is one of strict liability subject to a statutory defence of having done everything that could be expected to secure compliance. Not having had the money, or having been waiting for a decision on a retrospective application, is not that defence.

In practice the figures councils put to the court are rental income, additional unit values, avoided costs and the uplift in site value. A landlord who created two extra bedsits and collected rent for three years should expect the prosecution to produce the rent schedule.

Where the gain is substantial, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 route sits alongside the fine. Confiscation proceedings assess the benefit obtained from criminal conduct, and the amount is not limited by the fine. That combination is why planning prosecutions occasionally produce six-figure outcomes against individuals rather than companies.

Continuing breaches and repeat convictions

A conviction does not end the matter. Under section 179, where the failure to comply continues after conviction, a further offence is committed and a further prosecution can follow. There is no single daily penalty mechanism in the Act. The practical equivalent is successive prosecutions for continuing non-compliance, each attracting its own fine, with the court aware of the earlier conviction.

That structure is deliberate. It means the least costly moment to comply is always now, and it means an owner who treats the first fine as the price of the breach is making an expensive assumption.

Temporary stop notices are the other time pressure. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 extended the maximum duration of a temporary stop notice, giving councils a longer window to stop activity while they consider formal action. As at 9 October 2026, the enforcement provisions of that Act have been brought into force in stages, so check on legislation.gov.uk whether the provision you are relying on is in force for any provision you are relying on. The 2023 Act also changed the enforcement time limits in section 171B and introduced enforcement warning notices, and the broader picture of reform under that Act is traced in plan-making reform and what happens to emerging plans.

Cost recovery that runs alongside a fine

The fine is rarely the largest number on the final invoice.

Direct action is the one owners underestimate. A council that demolishes an unauthorised structure itself will usually employ a contractor at commercial rates, add officer time and recover the lot, and the owner has no control over the specification.

Reducing exposure by acting early

The options narrow quickly once a notice is served, so the sequence matters.

1. Establish whether the works or use needed permission at all. If they did not, a certificate of lawfulness under section 191 or 192 of the 1990 Act is the formal answer.
2. Check the time limits. Enforcement action is barred after the relevant period, and the 2023 Act changed those periods, so date the breach precisely with evidence.
3. If a notice has been served and there is a planning case to make, appeal within the stated period. An enforcement notice appeal is the only route to argue that permission ought to be granted.
4. If there is no appeal and no defence, comply within the compliance period and record that you have.
5. Where full compliance is impossible in the time given, apply for an extension in writing before the period expires and explain what has been done.
6. Where a retrospective application is the realistic route, submit it early. Making one after an enforcement notice has been served restricts the grounds available on appeal.
7. Take advice before any conversation with the council is recorded under caution, because statements made at that stage are evidence.

Keeping records while a dispute runs

Enforcement cases are decided on dates and documents, often years later.

Keep a dated chronology from the first contact, with every letter, email and site visit logged. Photograph the site at intervals with metadata intact. Retain tenancy agreements, invoices, delivery notes and utility bills, because these are what establish when a use began, which is the central question under the time limits. Save the datasets you relied on, including screenshots of the council's own mapping and any permitted development guidance, with the date visible.

And write down what officers say on the phone, then confirm it by email the same day. An oral assurance that something is acceptable binds nobody, while a written exchange at least records what was understood at the time.

The planning law timeline is a place to follow how the enforcement reforms are being brought into force, and the UK planning law updates timeline is the page for that. For the underlying case on a retrospective application, a properly argued planning statement addressing the policy position is worth more than correspondence.

Start the supporting documents for a retrospective application by browsing the report categories.

This is general guidance, not legal advice, and it is not advice on any criminal matter. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.