Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a certificate of existing lawful use or development for Mr X’s neighbour to conduct a business from home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application before making its decision. Also, the Council confirms an investigation into reports the neighbour is breaching the certificate remains ongoing.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s application for a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development (CLEUD). He says the Council:
• ignored the effect his neighbour’s business has on him
• ignored the restrictive covenants on the properties forbidding running businesses from home
• ignored breaches of the CLEUD; and
• ignored errors in the CLEUD application.
2. Mr X wants the CLEUD revoked.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

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 Council confirms it received a complaint that a business was running from a house close to Mr X’s home. It says that following site visits and monitoring the Council asked the owner the apply for a CLEUD.
7. There is no statutory requirement for the Council to consult third parties including neighbours when it receives an application for a CLEUD.
8. Views expressed by third parties on the planning merits of the case, or on whether the applicant has any private rights to conduct the operation in question, or restrictive covenants on the property; are irrelevant when determining the application.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. In this case the Council considered the application including seeking further information from the applicant. The planning officer’s report explains why the application should be approved. This is the process we expect to see and therefore there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application to justify starting an investigation.
11. Mr X also complained to the Council the business conducted on the site exceeds the levels set out in the CLEUD application. The Council confirms it is investigating this matter. Once the investigation is complete, Mr X can raise a new complaint with the Council should he be dissatisfied with the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to grant the CLEUD.
• The Council’s investigation into reports of breaches of the CLEUD is ongoing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman