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. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with an application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development (CLOPUD). Ms X says there will be a material change in use of the property and a full planning application is needed for the proposal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. It is possible to seek formal confirmation from councils that an existing or proposed development or use of land is lawful and so needs no planning permission. If the council receives information to show the development or use is lawful, it must issue a certificate to that effect.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application before granting the CLOPUD. The case officer’s report addressed the proposed use of the property and considered if the change was material. However, the case officer decided there would be no material change in use, taking into consideration factors such as the impact on the character of the area and vehicle movements at the property.
8. I understand Ms X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment in this regard and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.
9. Ms X says the CLOPUD application lacked detail. The Council has accepted the report could have been more detailed and there were some errors. But I am satisfied the Council properly explained why the change in use of the property would not be material. Therefore, I consider it likely the decision to approve the CLOPUD application would be the same had the case officer’s report included more information.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has also not suffered any significant injustice because of any errors in the case officer’s report.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman