Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council granted a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development and handled enforcement issues in relation to land partly used for commercial business close to his home. An appeal on an application for the site is with the Planning Inspectorate, so we should not investigate further at this time.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council granted a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) and handled enforcement issues in relation to land partly used for commercial business close to his home.
2. Mr X said that as a result of the Council’s fault, his property has been flooded and he is disturbed throughout the day and night by noise and activity on the site. He wants the Council to revoke the CLEUD it granted the commercial business.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• delay by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission;
• a decision to refuse planning permission;
• conditions placed on planning permission; and
• a planning enforcement notice.

4. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. This included details of enforcement action at the site.
7. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. A number of complaints about the use of a commercial site near Mr X’s property were made in 2009 and 2010. The Council failed to take action about these until 2015 when new complaints were received.
9. In 2017 the owner of the commercial site submitted an application for a CLEUD for the whole of site. The owner said they had been operating on the site for over ten years and so were exempt from enforcement action.
10. The Council granted the CLEUD for part of the site (Part A). However, for other areas (Part B) it said the applicant had not been able to prove they had been operating for ten years. The Council began enforcement action in relation to Part B of the site.
11. Mr X complained to the Council and said the information submitted in support of the CLEUD application was inaccurate and false. The Council’s Legal Department carried out a review of the information and supported Mr X’s views.
12. The Council revoked the CLEUD. The owner of the commercial site appealed to the Planning Inspector. The appeal will be heard later this year.

My findings

13. Before we start or continue an investigation, we need evidence of both fault and a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
14. Enforcement action is ongoing and an appeal is yet to be heard by the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspectorate is free to exercise its own planning judgement and may reach a different conclusion to the Council when it considers the issues. The Planning Inspectorate appeal and enforcement processes may lead to other applications, actions or appeals. We cannot know what the outcome will be. Therefore, until the appeal process and any subsequent enforcement process has run its course, we will not be able to determine whether any fault in the process caused Mr X a significant injustice.
15. Because of this, we should end our investigation and allow the legal processes to continue and complete. Mr X may come back to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The planning enforcement process remains ongoing. Therefore, I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman