The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of reported breaches of planning control at a nearby listed building. I have stopped investigating this complaint and do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. Mr X has not suffered a personal injustice through the alleged fault and there is insufficient public interest in pursuing the matter further.
The complaint
I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of reported breaches of planning control at a nearby listed building. Mr X says the Council was told of the destruction taking place at the site of the listed building but it did not use its power to stop the destruction from happening when it could easily have done so.
Mr X wants the Council to ensure the owner of the property removes a new dwelling and reinstate old aspects of the property to deter more development at the site.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I examined the details of the complaint. I shared my draft decision with both parties.
What I found
Planning enforcement on listed buildings It is an offence to carry out works that require listed building consent without such a consent being obtained. Not all works require listed building consent, only demolition or works of alteration or extension that affect the character of the building as a building of special architectural or historic interest.
Works that required listed building consent may be given consent after they have occurred.
Where works occur without consent or in breach of a condition, the local planning authority has three options available to enforce against the breach: criminal prosecution, enforcement notices, and injunctions.
Local planning authorities have discretion to take enforcement action, when they regard it as expedient to do so, having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations.
The Council’s planning enforcement strategy states its aim to visit 80% of sites where there is an immediate threat to public safety, substantial damage to or loss of statutorily protected buildings, trees or areas within 24 hours of an enquiry being registered.
Analysis Mr X and others reported felling of trees and clearance of vegetation at a site including a listed building in or around October 2020. The Council says its arboricultural officer visited the site in early November 2020. The visit led the Council to impose a tree protection order on a group of trees at the site. The officer noted removal of stems less than 7.5cm in height did not require prior notification from the Council. With respect to concerns that had been expressed about damage to wildlife or protected species the Council noted it was not the enforcing agent.
The property owner made changes to the listed building. The Council asked the property owner to apply for listed building consent so it could consider whether to approve the changes retrospectively. The Council’s conservation officer visited the site and considered the changes did not harm the character or fabric of the listed building. The Council approved the application.
Finding
Mr X lives close to the site of the listed building but at some distance and with screening. I do not find that the changes made by the property owner caused Mr X to suffer a personal injustice that now warrants investigation by the Ombudsman.
As the reports of breaches of planning control involved a listed building, the Council had to prioritise the enquiry into the matter. It is unclear to me whether the Council responded within the timeframe set out in its planning enforcement strategy. However, it is clear that its arboricultural officer visited the site as well as its conservation officer. I do not find there is sufficient personal injustice caused to Mr X to warrant further enquiry into the question of the timing of the Council’s visits.
There is the public interest to consider. As the Council responded to the reports made by Mr X and others and considered the impact of the changes to the listed building through the listed building consent application, I do not find there is a public interest angle that warrants further enquiry into this matter by the Ombudsman. The Council largely dealt with the matter in accordance with planning enforcement guidance and the only question mark involves the timing of its initial visit.
Final decision
I have discontinued this investigation as I do not find there is sufficient personal injustice to Mr X caused by the alleged fault or sufficient public interest to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman