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 in the area where the complainant lives. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council accepted planning applications which contained incorrect information and were therefore fraudulent. He also says the Council ignored the change of use of the property.

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 Mr X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received an application for planning permission to change the use of a house in the area Mr X lives to a supported living home. Mr 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 Mr 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. Mr X complains the application contained incorrect information on the boundary and plot layouts.
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. It is for the local planning authority to decide 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. Mr X says the traffic movements caused by the change of use will cause a material change of use. He says the staff will be on shifts which can be increased and others will visit the property. The Council says the four adults in the house will not have their own cars. And Medical professionals, family visits etc would be no different to family members or medical professionals visiting a house which is occupied by individuals or a family.
12. Mr X has also raised issued about boundaries. However, these are not material planning considerations and are civil issues between the owners of the neighbouring properties.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the application for the CLOPUD. Mr X is not satisfied with the case law considered by the Council or its interpretation. However, 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. It has considered traffic movements which are raised by Mr X. It is satisfied the proposed vehicle movements for the use of the property as a home for four people with learning disabilities living as a household is not a material change of use of the property.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman