Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for Listed Building Consent. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with an application for Listed Building Consent for a development at a site adjoining his land.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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 would find fault.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Local authorities hold a list of buildings considered by English Heritage to have some special architectural or historic value. An application for Listed Building Consent must be made before carrying out any work to a listed building.

What happened

5. The owner of the land next to Mr X’s property applied for planning permission and Listed Building Consent to convert an existing cottage into two new dwellings. The Council considered the application and granted permission subject to conditions.
6. Following this, the developer made another application for Listed Building Consent to amend the previously approved plans to move the footprint of the new dwellings one metre away from archaeological walls discovered at the site. The developer also sought permission to remove an underground link room. The Council considered the application and granted permission.
7. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with the second application for Listed Building Consent. He says the development will not preserve the archaeological features important to both the development site and his land.

Assessment

8. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for Listed Building Consent. This is because I am unlikely to find fault.
9. Mr X has complained the Council has failed to consider the impact on the Grade II listed features before approving the application. He has suggested possible remedial actions to preserve the site.
10. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the proposal before granting Listed Building Consent. The case officer consulted Historic England and Historic Environment Planning before deciding the application was acceptable. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on the historic asset and listed building but decided the application was acceptable and in line with the relevant policies. The case officer also considered Mr X’s suggested amendments to the scheme. However, the case officer and conservation officer decided these were not necessary. As the Council properly considered the application it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I am unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman