Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for an Asset of Community Value. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the way the Council dealt with the Asset or the way it reached its decision to grant planning permission for an application to replace it with another development.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has granted planning permission to demolish a building with Asset of Community Value (ACV) status and replace this with another development. Ms X says the Council failed to consider the ACV status of the building and impact on local ecology. Ms X says the decision should have been taken by the Council’s planning committee but was made by an officer instead.
2. Ms X says local people have now been prevented from registering an interest in buying the ACV and there will be a detrimental impact on the local community if this is lost. Ms X would like the Council to allow the community to have time to raise funds to purchase the building and take action to protect local wildlife if the development does go ahead.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered relevant planning files available on the Council’s website.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council has given its officers powers to make decisions on most planning applications. There are limited circumstances when an application should be referred to the Council’s planning committee. This includes where a Parish Council requests an application is decided by Committee. The local Parish Council in this case did not ask for the decision to be referred to the Council’s Planning Committee so there is no fault in a Council officer making the decision instead. It is open to the Parish Council to raise concerns if it feels it was misled about the possible outcome of the Council’s decision.
8. The Council has accepted there was a delay in putting a viability assessment regarding the ACV on its website. The assessment was not added to the website until the date of the decision. The Council has apologised for this. However, as this was a delegated decision there is no duty to make background papers available prior to any decision being made. However, the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 says background papers should be made available once a decision has been made. Therefore, there is no fault in the Council not making the assessment available before its decision.
9. The Council produced an officer report which considered both the potential loss of the ACV and impact of the development on local ecology. The Council’s officer report considered the views of an independent assessor regarding the loss of the ACV. It said:

“sufficient evidence has been provided that the operation as a public house is not viable and that it is unlikely to be become commercially viable and that other commercial enterprises would experience similar problems in [the area].”

10. The officer report also considered the impact of the proposed development on local ecology. It found that the Planning Inspector had previously reached a decision on an application for the site and found there would be no “material harm to the ecology in the area”. The report found that the current application contained more substantial biodiversity enhancements than the application decided by the Planning Inspector. The report also noted that the Council’s Biodiversity Officer had no objections to the development subject to conditions being imposed on any planning permission.
11. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development. The Council has considered the loss of the ACV and the impact of the development on local ecology. Ms X may disagree with the decision but in the absence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision we cannot criticise it.
12. Ms X complains the Council has not forced the owner of the property to allow local people to have an opportunity to purchase the ACV. There is nothing to stop an owner of an ACV developing it according to their wishes subject to planning permission. The Council cannot compel the owner to offer the ACV for sale to the local community just because a planning application has been submitted. Therefore it is unlikely we would find fault with the actions of the Council in relation to any sale of the ACV.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault with the way the Council dealt with the planning application and the Asset of Community Value.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman