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 Council failed to consult residents about the application or consider the impact the proposed use of the building would have on the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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 and therefore the council does not take concerns about the impact on the area or residential amenity into account when determining a CLOPUD application. Instead, it is for the council to consider the facts available and decide if there is sufficient evidence regarding the lawfulness of the use.
6. Mr X says the Council did not consult residents about the CLOPUD application. But there was no duty on the Council to notify neighbouring residents.
7. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant the CLOPUD. He says the change in use of the building will be material and inaccurate information was submitted with the application. But it was for the Council to decide if it had sufficient information to determine the application. The case officer’s report also considered the proposed use of the building before deciding the change in use would not be material and therefore planning permission would not be needed.
8. This was a decision the Council 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.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman