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.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of proposed use or development (CLOPUD).

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. (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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Town and Country Planning Act enables a person to ascertain whether any proposed use of buildings or land would be lawful. If the local planning authority is satisfied the use is lawful it must issue a certificate to that effect.
6. The Council received a CLOPUD application for a site near Mr X’s home. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with the application and says it failed to publicise the application. However, councils are not required to notify residents about CLOPUD applications. I am also satisfied the case officer’s report shows the Council properly considered the proposal against the relevant legislation.
7. Mr X says the Council overlooked a restrictive covenant for the site when assessing the application. He says he incurred legal expenses because of the Council’s oversight. However, any legal covenant that applied to the site would not be a material planning consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman