Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD). Mr X says the CLOPUD was incorrectly granted, and the Council failed to consult residents or take steps to protect his amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Town and Country Planning Act enables a person to ascertain if an existing or proposed use of buildings or land is lawful. If the council is satisfied the use is lawful it must issue a certificate to that effect. Applications for a CLOPUD are not determined on planning merits. Instead, it is for the council to consider the facts available and decide if there is sufficient evidence regarding the lawfulness of the use.

What happened

5. In 2019, Mr X contacted the Council to complain about a nursery school using the land behind his home without permission. Mr X said this created noise disturbance and impacted his privacy. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and wrote to him to confirm the school did not intend to continue using the land.
6. In 2021, Mr X contacted the Council as the nursery was using the land again. The Council responded to Mr X and said there had been no planning breach as it had granted a CLOPUD. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to grant the CLOPUD. He says local residents should have been consulted. He also says the Council failed to consider the impact the use of the land would have on his amenity and steps should have been taken to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties such as screening and a buffer zone between his property and the playground.

Assessment

7. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a CLOPUD. This is because I am unlikely to find fault.
8. Mr X has complained the Council did not tell him about the CLOPUD application. But there is no duty on the Council to notify neighbouring residents. The Council could also not take concerns Mr X raised about amenity into account when determining the application for the certificate. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant the CLOPUD. But it was for the Council to decide if it had sufficient information to determine the application and it has explained why it considered the use of the land lawful. This was a decision it was entitled to make, and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the CLOPUD application it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X has raised concerns about noise levels from the school. However, he should contact the Council’s Environmental Health team if he believes this is a statutory nuisance so it can investigate the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I am unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman