Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Heritage Listing. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council listed his property, and other similar properties, on its Local Heritage List. He said it had not listed other properties with similar merits and it impaired owners’ ability to develop and sell their homes.
2. Mr X said the consultation process was inadequate and it was unclear what restrictions Listing might impose on development. Mr X said the Council should rescind Heritage Listing on all residential properties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the consultation process was inadequate and it was unclear what restrictions Listing might impose on development. In its complaint response the Council explained that Heritage Listing was part of a county-wide project that ran for several years. It said it publicised the project in the local press, local radio stations, at events and through social media to raise awareness and encourage public engagement. It made all information available on the publicly accessible website.
8. The Council explained how Listing would affect planning decisions. It said ‘permitted development rights’ would not be affected and where applications for planning permission were required, Local Listing would alert decision makers to heritage value so they could consider it. It said it would consider each application on its own merit.
9. 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 and clarified how Listing impacts planning decisions and investigation. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.
10. Mr X complained that Listing was impairing owners’ ability to sell their homes. The Council provided evidence from Historic England that many property owners in conservation areas find the value of their property increases over time.
11. 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.
12. The Council asked Mr X to let it know about any properties that he thought should be listed, so it could assess them for inclusion. The Council also offered Mr X the opportunity to appeal the decision to list his property and it would be reasonable for Mr X to use this process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman