Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council acted improperly in granting a certificate of lawfulness for change of use of a neighbouring property. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X’s neighbour applied for a certificate of lawfulness for a proposed change of use. The Council considered the application and decided there was no material change of use, so it granted the certificate. Mr X believes the Council acted improperly in granting the certificate and says it failed to take into account legally binding covenants contained within the property’s title deeds.
5. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
6. It is clear Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision but the planning officer’s report shows it properly considered the application and reached a decision it was entitled to reach. The decision is cogent and supported by clear reasons even if Mr X disagrees with them. We cannot therefore question it.
7. While Mr X is unhappy the Council did not take account of the covenants and the reasons for their existence they were not relevant to the application. This is because the Council was only looking at whether the proposal amounted to a material change of use and because it did not, it did not require planning permission. The Council could not therefore consider any concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area or neighbour amenity.
8. If Mr X believes the Council has wrongly interpreted the issues and that its decision is unlawful he may wish to consider applying for a Judicial Review.
9. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman