Summary: Mr C complains about the Council’s decision-making process when considering a prior notification application to demolish a farmhouse and barns which has led to the community losing a heritage asset. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the Council’s decision-making process when considering a prior notification application to demolish a farmhouse and barns.
2. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault, the local community has lost a prominent heritage asset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mr C without third party information. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

7. The general power to control development and use of land is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Permission is required for any development or material change of use of land and may be granted by a Local Planning Authority (LPA) or deemed to be permitted if it falls within the limits set out in Permitted Development regulations.
8. In some cases, even though some proposals might not require planning permission, there is still an obligation to give notice to the LPA before starting work. Prior notification is sometimes needed for:

• extensions to houses
• forestry or agricultural development
• demolition works
• telecommunications equipment

9. Part 11, Class B, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (GPDO) allows, subject to prior notification to the LPA, demolition of a building subject to certain requirements and exceptions.
10. The above provides that unless demolition is urgently and immediately necessary in the interests of safety or health the developer must, before starting the demolition, apply to the LPA for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority is required about the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site.
11. Development is not permitted by Class B if the building has been rendered unsafe or otherwise uninhabitable by the action or inaction of any person having an interest in the land on which the building stands and it is practicable to secure safety or health by works of repair or works for affording temporary support.
12. LPAs can remove or restrict permitted development rights in a particular area or site or for a particular type of development in its area by making an ‘article 4 direction’. Government guidance says LPAs should only consider making article 4 directions in the exceptional circumstances where the direction is necessary to protect local amenity or the well being of the area.

Key events

13. The Council received an application in July 2020 for prior notification of a proposed demolition under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 Schedule 2, Part 11.
14. The application was to demolish a farmhouse and all barns and stated the buildings were in a very poor condition and a health and safety risk. The proposed method of demolition was described as mechanical and the proposed restoration of the site was described as restoration of peatland habitat.
15. The Council received a significant number of objections to the proposals. The case officer’s report provided a summary of the objections received. These included the view that the neglect of the buildings by the applicant meant the demolition was excluded as permitted development. The report also highlighted a representation that the buildings should be listed or that the LPA should use an article 4 direction to protect the site from demolition.
16. The case officer assessed such action could not be supported following consultation with Historic England and that the historic and architectural qualities of the buildings were not such to justify the making of an article 4 direction. I note the Council also sought its own legal advice about the application.
17. The case officer’s report says the buildings occupied a relatively prominent position in open countryside and were within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It is noted the proposals were to demolish all the buildings with the exception of one that had been restored. The report noted the application was supported by a plan and method statement for the demolition and removal of material, a summary statement, ecological survey and heritage survey of the buildings.
18. The report explains that if the proposals were assessed as permitted development under this notification procedure the LPA could not oppose the principle of demolition but could control the method of demolition and site restoration. The case officer set a detailed explanation of how they had assessed the proposals as permitted development. This included that the buildings were not listed or otherwise a designated heritage asset and referred to a response from Heritage England that it had rejected recent applications for listing as they had not provided new evidence of the building’s significance subsequent to the previous assessment of the building.
19. The report also dealt with the specific exclusion relating to the situation where the building had been rendered unsafe or otherwise uninhabitable due to the action or inaction of any person with an interest in the land and it is practicable to secure safety or health by repair works or temporary support. The report noted the significant representations received on this point and set out a summary of the historic timeline provided by objectors. This included reference to marketing for the property in 2015 which described the need for renovation and signs of vandalism which the objector considered was proof of the applicant’s neglect. The report also included a summary of the applicant’s evidence. The case officer provided an assessment of the evidence and concluded the conditions of the buildings had not deteriorated significantly since the applicant acquired the site which meant this test was not met.
20. The case officer was satisfied there was enough evidence about the demolition process and site restoration and these details were acceptable. The Council issued a decision in September that prior approval of the method of demolition and/or site restoration works was not required and the proposals could proceed subject to any other required consents or notifications.
21. Mr C has provided a copy of sales particulars for the property in 2015 and suggests the case officer’s report above did not accurately reflect the content. The sales particulars describe the site as “ a neglected farmhouse” … “in need of substantial renovation or possibly even demolition and re-building” with associated agricultural buildings also “in need of substantial renovation.” The particulars also note the property has not been lived in for approximately 10 years and some of it had been vandalised.

My consideration

22. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did. On the broader point, we cannot always respond to complaints in the level of detail people might want. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint. The amount of information provided by Mr C and the Council was considerable. In this statement, I have not referred to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.
23. I should also explain that the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the Council made.
24. Mr C suggests the case officer’s report did not accurately represent the details of the 2015 sales particulars for the property.
25. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:

• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

26. I am satisfied the case officer’s report provided a reasonable summary of the material considerations including the evidence of neglect the objectors had provided including the sales particulars. I would not expect the report to provide verbatim quotes from the sales particulars and it is clear the case officer weighed the evidence provided in reaching their assessment.
27. Based on the evidence provided, I consider the Council took account of the relevant information from the applicant, third parties and representations from local residents in making the decision. I am satisfied the Council considered all relevant considerations, did not consider any irrelevant considerations and its conclusions were rational. As I have found no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making process, it is not open to me to consider the merits of the decision it made.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman