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 or a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. It is also not yet possible to determine if the complainant has suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development (CLOPUD). He says the decision to issue the certificate was based on incorrect information from the applicant and his neighbour is operating a business from the site.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 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 a building or land is lawful. If the council is satisfied the use is lawful it must issue a certificate to that effect. CLOPUD applications are not determined on planning merits and therefore councils do not take concerns about the impact on the area or residential amenity into account. Instead, councils will consider the facts available and decide if there is sufficient evidence regarding the lawfulness of the use or development.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application, including concerns raised about the use of the site, before deciding the proposal was permitted development. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard and the Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was tainted by fault.
7. Since the Council issued the certificate, Mr X has raised further concerns about the use of the building and says his neighbour is operating a business from the site. The Council’s enforcement investigation regarding the possible breach is ongoing. As the Council’s enforcement investigation has not concluded it is not yet possible to say if Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result of any alleged fault. This is because the Council may still decide there has not been a breach or that enforcement action is not necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. It is not yet possible to determine if Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in relation to the Council’s enforcement investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman