The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s application for a certificate of lawful development. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is for the Council to revoke the certificate and require changes to the development.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider his objection to his neighbour’s application for a certificate of lawful development (CLD). He wants the Council to revoke its decision and require his neighbours to change the design.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Permitted development The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) allows certain development without the need for planning permission. This is known as ‘permitted development’. Permitted development rights are subject to limitations and exclusions, but when a proposal falls within the parameters of development allowed by the Order it will not require planning permission; the Council therefore has no basis to refuse it.
Although permitted development does not require planning permission a person may apply to the local planning authority for a CLD. An application for a CLD determines whether the development proposed is permitted or whether it requires planning permission. If the proposal is permitted development, and if the applicant carries out the development in accordance with the approved plans, the Council cannot stop it. If an applicant submits plans which suggest the proposal is permitted development but then carries out work which is not allowed, the Council could investigate as a possible breach of planning control.
My assessment
Mr X’s complaint is based at least in part by the speed of the Council’s decision but this is not evidence of fault. He objected to his neighbour’s application but the Council could not consider most of the issues he raised as it was limited only to determining whether the proposal amounted to permitted development.
Mr X believes the Council failed to consider a relevant point but this is not the case. The planning officer’s report shows clear consideration of the issue and its responses to Mr X’s complaints explain its reasons for approving the application. In these circumstances we cannot question the Council’s decision and nor can we achieve the outcome Mr X wants. The Council has granted the CLD and we cannot say it must revoke the decision to the detriment of his neighbour.
It is also relevant that the injustice Mr X claims from the Council’s decision has not yet taken place. Mr X is concerned about the impact of possible unauthorised use of the development but this is pure speculation at this point; we could not therefore provide a remedy for it even if there was evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of the application.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman