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. 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). Mr X says the decision to approve the application was based on incorrect information. He says the development will have a significant impact on his home and has led to his neighbour being given full planning permission to develop their property.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. It is possible to seek formal confirmation from councils that an existing or proposed development or use of land is lawful and so needs no planning permission. If the Council accepts the evidence provided, it can issue a certificate of lawful use to the applicant. This may happen where the development is ‘permitted development’ and so deemed acceptable because it complies with the limits in the regulations.
6. In this case, the Council approved Mr X’s neighbour’s application for a CLOPUD. Mr X says the proposal does not comply with permitted development rights. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the proposal before approving the application. The case officer’s report explained how the development will comply with the relevant legislation. Mr X says the calculations used by the Council are wrong. But the Council has explained in response to Mr X’s complaint how it calculated the roof volume.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the application. However, as the Council properly considered the application, in line with the relevant legislation, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman