Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a Certificate of Lawfulness for Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) to his neighbour, or its decision to not take enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of Council fault, nor sufficient personal injustice to Mr X, to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next door to a property whose owner was granted a Certificate of Lawfulness for Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) by the Council for a residential structure at the end of their garden. Mr X complains the Council:
1. incorrectly granted the CLOPUD because the structure is too high to be so close to the boundary fences;
2. did not take enforcement action against the neighbour.
2. Mr X says he is worried about a fire starting in the structure and spreading to other properties, including his own, along the fence. He wants the Council to instruct his neighbour to take down the structure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received the neighbour’s application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD). Officers noted the design of the structure meant it could be relocated and complied with the legal requirements to be classed as a caravan. They determined the siting of the structure in the garden, for use as additional accommodation to the neighbour’s house, would not be a material change of land use needing planning permission. On receiving Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s enforcement officers noted the planning officers’ earlier CLOPUD decision. They decided this meant there was no planning breach to pursue, in line with the grant of the CLOPUD.
7. We may only go behind a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and, but for that fault, officers would have made a different decision. The Council’s officers considered the application details and the relevant law to reach its decisions. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning or enforcement decision-making processes here to warrant investigation. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the decisions. But it is not fault for a council to properly make decisions with which someone disagrees.
8. Mr X refers to separation distances being too small between the structure and three boundary fences. He believes its height, over 2.5 metres, means it needs to be set back from boundaries by at least 2 metres. These are the kinds of requirements for structures deemed to be development, which need planning permission. The Council’s CLOPUD decision meant the neighbour’s proposal did not require planning permission, so the separation distances did not apply and could not be used as a reason to refuse the certificate or enforce.
9. Even if it was fault for the Council to grant the CLOPUD and not enforce, we will not investigate because there is insufficient injustice caused to Mr X by the matters to justify an investigation. Mr X’s claimed injustice is worry about fire spreading from the structure, along garden fences to his and others’ properties. His concern about a speculative event which has not happened is not sufficient injustice here to warrant us investigating. The Council has advised Mr X to contact the local fire service if he has concerns about fire safety or believes regulations have been breached.
10. Mr X wants the neighbour to be instructed to remove the new structure. This would require the Council to revoke the CLOPUD and enforce. We cannot order councils to withdraw granted permissions or planning certificates, or to use their discretionary enforcement powers. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint, which is a further reason why we will not investigate it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning or enforcement decisions to warrant investigation; and
• there is insufficient personal injustice to him caused by the matter to justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman