West Lindsey District Council (25 024 864)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the lack of a recent review of a conservation area. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider Mr X to have suffered a significant personal injustice.
The complaint
- Mr X says the Council has failed to appraise a conservation area for 40 years despite significant growth of the village. He says this means residents, developers and planners have no context for commenting on development within and nearby the conservation area.
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, or
- any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Notes from English Heritage’s guidance on conservation areas states:
“The PPG [Planning Practice Guidance] stresses that ‘local planning authorities must review their conservation areas from time to time’ (section 69(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990). Resources permitting, every five years is ideal, but review frequency will vary according to the development pressures in the local area”.
- There is no timeframe for reviewing conservation areas. The Council recognises the area in question has not been reviewed for many years. However, a new appraisal of the conservation area is intended but it cannot confirm when it will complete it.
- I understand Mr X believes the Council should have carried out reviews over the previous years. However, the Council has no duty to do so.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action. Also, we do not consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman