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 and a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD). He has also complained about how the Council has dealt with a breach of planning control. Mr X says the unauthorised development has a significant impact on his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Town and Country Planning Act allows a person to ascertain if a proposed development is lawful. If the Council receives information to show the development is lawful, it must issue a certificate to that effect.
5. In this case, Mr X’s neighbour applied to the Council for a CLOPUD. The Council considered the application and decided the proposed works were permitted development and therefore lawful.
6. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the application. But I am satisfied the Council properly considered if the proposed development shown on the plans was permitted development before granting permission.
7. Mr X says the outbuilding that has been built is not permitted development and says the Council should therefore revoke the CLOPUD. The Council accepts there has been a breach of planning control as the outbuilding that has been built is higher than the development shown on the plans. Although this means the CLOPUD will not apply to the development built, it does not mean it is invalid and an outbuilding built in line with the plans would be permitted development.
8. Mr X says the Council should take action against his neighbour and a planning application should be made for the outbuilding. But Council’s do not need to take action just because there has been a breach of planning control. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has explained why it does not consider enforcement action is necessary and why the development will not have an unacceptable impact.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman