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 and reports of breaches of planning control. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss J, complains about how the Council dealt with an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD). She says the Council:
• failed to tell her about her neighbours planning application
• failed to properly consider all issues before deciding on the principal elevation of the property
• failed to investigate her complaint properly

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 Miss J and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Town and Country Planning Act enables a person to find out 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. Therefore, the council does not take concerns about the impact on the area or residential amenity into account when deciding a CLOPUD application. Instead, it is for the council to consider the facts available and whether there is enough evidence regarding the lawfulness of the use.
6. Miss J says the Council did not consult residents about the CLOPUD application. But there is no duty on the Council to notify neighbouring residents.
7. The Government published Technical Guidance on Permitted Development rights for householders. This says:

“In most cases the principal elevation will be that part of the house which fronts (directly or at an angle) the main highway serving the house (the main highway will be the one that sets the postcode for the house concerned). It will usually contain the main architectural features such as main bay windows or a porch serving the main entrance to the house. Usually, but not exclusively, the principal elevation will be what is understood to be the front of the house. There will only be one principal elevation on a house. Where there are two elevations which may have the character of a principal elevation, for example, on a corner plot, a view will need to be taken as to which of these forms the principal elevation.”

8. Miss J disagrees with the Council’s decision on which is the principal elevation of the property. However, the decision on what is the principal elevation is a matter for professional planning officers. The Council has explained the reasons for its decision. This includes:
• the position of the main access to the building
• the location of the property on a corner
• the access path leading from the road to the front door
9. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the CLOPUD. It considered the relevant information before deciding on the principal elevation.
10. The Council could also not take Miss J’s concerns about the impact on her amenity into account when deciding the application for the certificate. I understand she disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant the CLOPUD. But it is for the Council to decide if it has enough information to make a decision. This was a decision it is entitled to make, and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless there was fault in the decision-making process. As the Council properly considered the CLOPUD application it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Miss J also wants an investigation into a single storey side extension which she says is a fire risk.
12. In response to my enquiry, the Council has confirmed the only breach of planning control at the property is the front dormer window. This fails to conform to the design and proportions allowed under an earlier planning permission. It says it has invited the owner to put in a retrospective planning application to regularise this development. However, they have chosen not to do so. The Council considers it is not expedient to take further action.
13. Government guidance does not say that councils should take action against all unauthorised development, but a council should act when there is serious harm to local public amenity. The decisive issue for the local planning authority is whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the unauthorised use of land or buildings merit protection in the public interest.
14. In this case the Council decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action against the front dormer. Having considered the breach, this is a decision it is entitled to make. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process.
15. Miss J’s concerns about a fire risk because of the single storey extension are noted. But the Council has not indicated any breach of planning control for this development.
16. Miss J also complains the Council failed to properly investigate her complaint. I do not intend to investigate this point. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or its consideration of breaches of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman