Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to make Mr X’s property a Heritage Listing. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not consider his opposition to his property being listed on a Heritage Listing.
2. He says the value of his property significantly reduced and it cannot be redeveloped or sold in the same way as similar properties, which have not been listed.
3. He would like the Council to remove the property from listing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as parish councils. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X said the criteria for listing was unclear and the consultation and assessment process was flawed.
10. Mr X’s complaint includes aspects of the process conducted by the Parish Council. The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over decisions, conduct, governance, meetings, or services provided by parish and town councils under their own powers.
11. The Council explained there was no legal requirement for consultation, but it had made efforts to make the process transparent through a public website, media publicity and parish council notifications. It advised him he could request an internal appeal against his property’s inclusion on the Local Heritage Listing. It would be reasonable for Mr X to use this process.
12. Mr X said his property should not have been included on the Heritage Listing because it had extensions. He said other more original properties had not been listed.
13. The Council explained which original features led it to consider including Mr X’s property on Heritage Listing and confirmed the decision to include Mr X’s property was reached in line with criteria used, despite the property’s extensions.
14. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable. The Council properly considered the Listings. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.
15. Mr X said Heritage Listing had affected the value of his property and his ability to develop it. The Council provided evidence from Historic England that many property owners in conservation areas find the value of their property increases over time.
16. The Council explained Local Listing does not introduce new consent requirements but means heritage significance has to be taken into account when planning applications are assessed. Permitted development rights still apply where relevant. Local Listing also only relates to the exterior. Proposals can still be approved where they are designed sensitively and take account of the building’s character.
17. Without information about specific cases, it is impossible to say whether listing impacted development rights or property sales. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation of this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman