Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Preston City Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 25-008-527 Sector Planning Category Planning Applications Decided 27 November 2025

View Preston City Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

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

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

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)) 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)

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

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.

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.

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.

Final decision

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

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Preston City Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-030-611 Other
25-009-181 Other
25-005-985 16 Sep 2025 Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Mrs X’s council tax account. This is because … Other
25-001-649 02 Sep 2025 Summary: The Council has apologised for poor communications in relation to Mr X’s homelessness application and that is sufficient to … Other
25-010-068 02 Sep 2025 Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a … Other
View all decisions for this organisation