Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission to changes to the façade of a locally listed building. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. Other changes to the building are the subject of an ongoing enforcement case in which we cannot intervene.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains in his role as a member of a local conservation group about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective permission for amendments to a ‘locally listed’ building.
2. He complains the Council has:
1. not been consistent with earlier planning decisions when permitting alterations to the building;
2. failed to protect the building from damaging alterations.
3. Mr X says the matter has caused great harm to a locally listed building in a conservation area and causes severe damage to him and to wider society. He wants the Council to:
• recognise the second planning application was not ‘lawfully consistent’ with the earlier application;
• recognise the application did not protect the building from harm, breaching their own protective historic building policies;
• hold an internal inquiry into the matter and publish the results.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council; or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X makes numerous objections to the Council’s decision to grant retrospective permission for the changes to the building. He does not consider the works to be in keeping with the heritage of the building. The Council says it has looked at the application in the round, taking into account all relevant planning matters, including heritage issues. The planning officers decided the works as completed and in the retrospective application are acceptable in planning terms.
8. For us to criticise a council officer’s decision, there must be evidence of fault in the process they followed to make that decision which, but for the fault, would have resulted in a different outcome. I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the planning decision process officers followed here to warrant us investigating.
9. In reaching their decision, officers took into account the heritage impact, but also the site’s location and business use. Officers considered some changes made were not acceptable, such as the shutter installed without permission which the Council is requiring the owner to remove. But officers decided that other changes, including the new doors, and a different shutter design more in keeping with the host property, were acceptable on balance. Officers determined the works struck an appropriate balance between the heritage aspects of the building and the practical considerations for the viability of the site as a business. That was a professional judgement they were entitled to make. I realise Mr X disagrees with the Council officers’ decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. I note Mr X considers the decision on the retrospective application was not consistent with an earlier permission for the same building which involved consideration of the retention of its heritage features. But officers are required to determine planning applications on their own facts and merits, at the time they are received. This may result in a later decision finding some changes acceptable in planning terms which an earlier decision on a different application, at a different time and in a different context, had not.
11. There are other aspects of the development as built which have not formed part of the owner’s retrospective planning application. Those are the subject of an ongoing enforcement investigation by officers. We cannot be involved in that process and it has not formed part of this assessment of the separate planning application decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman