Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with breaches of planning control on land near her home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, the Council confirms there is a continuing planning enforcement investigation. Therefore, we consider that further investigation by us will not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council relied on illogical and inconsistent reasoning when dealing with applications of Certificates of Lawfulness for a site near her home.
2. She says it
• Failed to give clear reasons for its decisions
• Delayed enforcement action which altered the outcome; and
• Relied on information from the landowner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2025 Mrs X’s neighbour applied to the Council for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (CLUED) for a site near her home.
7. The Council refused the application saying that some commercial activity has occurred at the site over the last ten years and is therefore immune from enforcement action. But it needed to consider what activity is occurring that goes beyond that.
8. The neighbour also put in a retrospective planning application for the stairs that lead to a roof terrace without permission. However, the neighbour withdrew the application.
9. The Council confirms officers visited the site and met the applicant and their agent. The neighbour agreed to remove the steps. It also confirms the neighbour has since advised the business has been relocated and stopped operating from the site. It says it is verifying this information and will advise Mrs X of the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the Council refused the CLUED application and visited the site. The neighbour has acted to resolve the breaches of planning control on the site, and the Council will advise Mrs X of the outcome of its checks. From the information we have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman