Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development for a property next to her home. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mrs X, says the Council granted a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) despite the number and strength of the objections received. She also says the application was false and misleading. Mrs X says the Council ignored the effects the proposal will have on her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the relevant planning laws and guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received an application for planning permission to change the use of a house next to his home to a supported living home. Mrs X and others objected to the application. Before the Council made a decision the applicant withdrew the application. As there was no decision on this application, I do not consider it caused Mrs X any personal injustice.
6. The applicant then put in an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD). The proposal was for a change of use from a residential dwelling (planning class C3) to a supported living facility for four adults living together as a household (planning class C3(b)).
7. An application for a CLOPUD is not a planning application. The local planning authority must issue a certificate if it receives information satisfying them that the proposed use or operations would be lawful.
8. Mrs X complains the Council:
• failed to consider the objections to the application
• says the application contained misleading information; and
• failed to consider the impact the proposal would have on her privacy and enjoyment of her property
9. However, the law says that an application for a CLOPUD is not decided on the planning merits of the case. It is determined on the facts available. However, it will be for the local planning authority to decide as to whether the evidence available is enough to allow it to decide on the facts one way or the other.
10. Government guidance on processing applications for CLOPUDs states the application needs to describe precisely what is being applied for and the land to which it relates. The Council confirms it was satisfied it understood what the application was for, and the land involved.
11. The guidance also confirms there is no statutory requirement to consult third parties such as neighbours or parish councils. It says:

“Views expressed by third parties on the planning merits of the case, or on whether the applicant has any private rights to carry out the operation, use or activity in question, are irrelevant when determining the application.”

12. So, although the Council may have received objections to the application from Mrs X and others, it cannot take these objections into account as the application was for a CLOPUD, not a full planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the application for the CLOPUD. The Council is satisfied there was enough information to make a decision on the application. The use of the property as supported accommodation for four adults with mental health problems or learning disabilities complies with the description of planning class C3(b).
14. The Council is not required to consult neighbours on CLOPUD applications, and it cannot consider objections from neighbours or the merits of the proposal when determining these applications.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman