Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions on whether a children’s home at residential property requires planning permission. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council granting a certificate of lawful development for the use of a residential property as a children’s home, and that it maintains the implemented use does not amount to a material change of use.
2. Mr X also says the Council failed to adequately respond to his subsequent complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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

5. I considered:
• the information provided by Mr X.
• emails sent to Mr X’s Member of Parliament in May 2025 and July 2025.
• information about the certificate of lawful development application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the use of the property near his home.
7. But the Ombudsman is 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 whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
8. I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application, or Mr X’s concerns about the implemented use. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:

• this was an application for a certificate of lawful development, not an application for planning permission. This means the Council could only consider whether the proposal amounted to development requiring planning permission. It could not take into account the planning policies contained within its development plan.
• the Council was entitled to balance and weigh the relevant planning issues, and reach its own professional judgement on the application, even if Mr X disagrees with the conclusion(s) reached.
• each case is considered on its own merits.
• the Council has considered the subsequent points Mr X has made about the actual use of the property, and has explained its reasons for deciding this still does not amount to a material change of use. Again, that is a professional judgement it was entitled to reach, even if Mr X disagrees with it.

9. As we have decided not to investigate the substantive issue being complained about (i.e. the Council’s decisions on whether the use requires planning permission), it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue any associated concerns about the Council’s complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the use of the site.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman