Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control or its decision to approve an application for a certificate of lawfulness of existing 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 his concerns about the use of his neighbour’s property. Mr X says the business operating from his neighbour’s home significantly impacts his privacy and causes noise issues. Mr X says the Council issued a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development (CLEUD) without consulting him or properly considering the impact.

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 Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Town and Country Planning Act enables a person to ascertain if an existing use of a building or other land is lawful. A development or use of land can be certified as lawful if it is permitted development or because the time to take enforcement action has expired. If the council is provided with sufficient information to show the use is lawful, it must issue a certificate to that effect.
7. Mr X contacted the Council to complain his neighbour was operating a business from their property without permission. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns. However, it said it had no grounds on which to take action as the use of the property was lawful and a CLEUD had been issued a few years earlier.
8. Mr X says he was not consulted before the CLEUD was issued and the Council failed to consider the problems that may be caused because of the use of the property. But there was no requirement for the Council to notify neighbouring residents about the application. I am also satisfied the Council properly considered the information available before deciding the business at the property had been ongoing for ten years and was therefore immune from enforcement action.
9. As the Council properly considered if it had any grounds to take enforcement action and the CLEUD application it is unlikely I would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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