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. We will also not investigate the complainant’s concerns about how the Council dealt with an alleged breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD). He says the proposed use of the building is materially different from the previous use. He also says the original planning conditions for the building have been breached. Mr X says the intended use of the building will impact his home and the Council has failed to consider the impact on neighbouring properties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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.
5. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Town and Country Planning Act enables a person to ascertain if an existing or proposed use of buildings or land is lawful. If the council is satisfied the use is lawful it must issue a certificate to that effect. Applications for a CLOPUD are not determined on planning merits and concerns about neighbouring amenity cannot be taken into account when determining a CLOPUD application. Instead, the council will consider the facts available and decide if there is sufficient evidence regarding the lawfulness of the use.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application before deciding to grant the CLOPUD. The case officer’s report addressed the implications of the original planning conditions for the development. The officer also considered if the description of the original development further restricted the use of the building. However, the officer decided the proposed use would not be materially different from the previous uses and within the same use class. Therefore, the officer decided the planning condition would not be breached. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide there would not be a material change in use of the building and grant the CLOPUD. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the CLOPUD application it is unlikely I could find fault.
8. The Council also considered Mr X’s concerns about internal alterations to the building. However, it decided the changes did not need planning permission and therefore it had no grounds on which to take enforcement action. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. As the Council properly considered if there had been a planning breach it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I am unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman