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 the Council’s decision to grant his neighbour’s retrospective application for listed building consent. Mr X says the decision was based on inaccurate information and the development has a significant impact on his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on Mr X’s property and the listed building, before granting listed building consent. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. The case officer acknowledged the development caused some harm to visual amenity when viewed from Mr X’s property. But the officer decided the enhancement of the existing wall outweighed the minor harm to views from Mr X’s property. The Council further addressed the impact on Mr X’s property in response to his complaint. The Council said it did not consider the height increase of the wall to be so harmful to Mr X’s amenity, living conditions or the listed building to warrant refusal of the application.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees and says the Council told him the application would be refused. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
8. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling and says it took too long to respond to his concerns. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman