Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the process the Council followed when designating his locality as part of a conservation area. Investigation by us could not add to the Council’s previous investigation of the matter. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in an area designated by the Council as a conservation area over 20 years ago. He says he discovered that decision last year.
2. Mr X complains the Council failed to carry out the correct statutory process when making the conservation area designation.
3. Mr X is concerned householders may have unknowingly breached the conservation area restrictions, which could lead to enforcement action by the Council. He wants the Council to revoke the conservation area designation decision and repeat the process in full compliance with statute.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Many years have passed since the Council made its conservation area designation decision. It is unlikely we would be able to make a finding on the claimed faults in the process officers followed over two decades ago. There would be no additional evidence available to us which has not already been considered by the Council when providing its complaint responses. We will not investigate because we could not add to the Council’s investigation of the matter.
7. We recognise Mr X’s key concern is that the Council did not follow the proper conservation area designation process. But we do not only consider whether there has been fault by a council. We must also go on to determine whether a fault identified or claimed directly causes a sufficiently significant injustice. Even if there was Council fault in its conservation area process and decision we will not investigate. We note Mr X is concerned about Council planning enforcement of the restrictions put in place by the conservation area designation. But he does not say he has been enforced against or contacted by the Council about any enforcement issues regarding his property. Any concern Mr X may have about becoming involved in a planning enforcement issue because of the conservation area status is not a sufficiently significant personal injustice. If other residents become involved in such enforcement, that would not be an injustice to Mr X. There is not enough significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matter complained of to warrant us investigating, so we will not do so.
8. We note Mr X wants the Council to revoke its previous conservation area decision and re-run the process in line with statutory requirements. We cannot order councils to revoke decision about planning designations, whether recent or historic. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• investigation could not add to the Council’s previous investigation; and
• there is not enough significant personal injustice caused to him by the matter complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman