Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider all available evidence before granting a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) on a site in the village where he lives.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The planning records on the Council’s website show the parish council objected to an application for a CLEUD on the grounds the original planning application had expired before work commenced on the site.
6. The planning officer report states documents provided by the developer indicated groundworks in the form of excavation of a side elevation for foundations for one of the plots started five days before the planning permission expired. The report also notes the Council issued a Community Infrastruture Levy letter deeming the development to have commenced. The planning officer was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the proposed use to build a single storey dwelling and eight two storey dwellings with associated car sheds and parking is lawful. A senior officer agreed with the planning officer and the Council granted the CLEUD under its scheme of delegation.
7. Mr X says he was given information by the Council some years ago which he says proves the development did not start before the old planning permission expired. However, although Mr X lives in the village, his home is not close to the development site, and we do not consider him to have suffered any significant personal injustice. Also, the development is almost complete and has a valid CLEUD, therefore further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• we do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice; and
• further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman