Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s decision to close his local golf course resulting in him being unable to access affordable golf in his area. The Ombudsman found no fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s decision to close his local municipal golf course resulting in him being unable to access affordable golf in the local area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

6. In 2018/2019 the Council marketed for sale a listed building (‘the House’) situated in a park it owned. Part of the park was used as a golf course. As part of the marketing exercise, the Council offered potential purchasers of the House the opportunity to operate the adjoining golf course. Various facilities used to support the operation of the golf course were in the House and outbuildings. So, any separate sale of the House would require the relocation of these facilities.
7. On 11 September 2019 the Council’s Cabinet considered a report regarding the sale of the House and the future operation of the park. The report explained that, following a marketing exercise, a preferred bidder had been identified for the purchase of the House. The report explained that the Council had received seven valid offers for the House but only two of these had expressed a serious interest in running the golf course. These offers were less suitable than those proposed by the preferred bidder. In addition, one was discounted because of the bidder’s poor financial standing and the other was discounted because it required the Council to take on all financial risks associated with running the golf course.
8. The report set out the details of the proposed sale and the implications for the future operation of the park and golf course. The report made recommendations to the Cabinet.
9. The Cabinet decided to approve the sale of the House to the preferred bidder. As the sale of the building would affect the operation of the golf course, the Cabinet also decided:
• To consult with stakeholders about the potential closure of the golf course;
• to undertake an Expressions of Interest (EOI) exercise to give third parties an opportunity to put forward viable proposals to operate the golf course;
• that, if no viable proposal was received, the golf course would be decommissioned and absorbed into the existing parkland.
10. The Cabinet report proposed terms on which the EOI exercise would be based including:
• the operator is to obtain the necessary consents, fund and construct any building or facilities required to support the operation of the golf course;
• the operator to be responsible for undertaking full maintenance, management and operation of the golf course and any buildings and all associated costs.
11. Any bidders not fulfilling these requirements would be discounted from the process.
12. The Cabinet approved the proposed terms and delegated authority to the Strategic Director of Corporate Resources and the Strategic Director of Communities and Place in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Governance and Licensing and the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Tourism to:
• agree detailed terms for the disposal of the House;
• undertake consultation on the proposals for the future operation of the golf course;
• undertake the EOI Exercise for the golf course;
• agree the criteria for assessing the viability of any submitted business proposal for the operation of the golf course;
• decide whether a viable proposal had been submitted; and
• agree the closure of the golf course if no viable proposal was received.
13. The consultation exercise began on 16 December 2019 and closed on 23 March 2020. It was publicised on the Council’s website and on social media. Hard copies were available at the golf shop on the site, the local library and in the Council House reception.
14. The Council received 805 responses to the consultation. 75% of the consultees believed it was important to the local area to retain the golf course. But around 65% of those who responded had played golf on the course.
15. The EOI Exercise ran alongside the consultation exercise and was publicised on the Council’s website, at the golf shop on site and at the local library. A link to the EOI exercise was also included in the consultation document. The Council also advertised the Exercise in the national ‘Leisure Opportunities’ magazine which is a news and jobs service for professionals working in all areas of the leisure industry. The advert appeared in hardcopy and on the website and weekly email bulletins.
16. The EOI exercise ended on 23 March 2020. The Council received four bids. Officers considered the bids and prepared a report for consideration by the CAB/CLT meeting in August 2020. CAB/CLT is a regular meeting between Cabinet Members and the Council’s leadership team. It is a non-decision-making body which sits outside the Council’s formal decision-making process and provides a forum for officers to seek a steer in respect of matters, allowing them to formulate reports for consideration by the Council’s formal decision-making process.
17. The report set out the current position in relation to the golf course and the sale of the House together with the outcome of the consultation and the EOI exercise.
18. In November 2020 the strategic directors with delegated authority decided:
• to note the results of the consultation exercise;
• that no viable business proposals to operate the golf course had been submitted;
• that the golf course should be decommissioned and absorbed into the existing parkland; and
• the golf course would be closed on 31 December 2020.
19. Following this decision, the Council issued a media statement confirming that the golf course would close on 31 December 2020. This generated new interest in operating the golf course and, in early December 2020, another party who was experienced in managing and operating golf courses put forward a proposal to operate the course. Officers were authorised to evaluate the proposal and prepared a report for consideration by the Cabinet.
20. The Cabinet considered the proposal on 14 January 2021 and resolved:
• not to proceed with the bid;
• not to proceed with any other enquiries that may be received in connection with operating the golf course; and
• that the golf course be decommissioned and absorbed into the existing parkland.
21. The golf course was closed on 31 December 2020.
22. In January 2021 Mr B, who has played golf at the course since he was a child, raised concerns about the closure of the golf course with his local councillors. These concerns were passed on to officers who corresponded with Mr B about the matter.
23. On 21 July 2021 Mr B submitted questions concerning the golf course at a full Council meeting. A Cabinet Member provided answers. In addition, a local councillor tabled a motion regarding the closure of the golf course. Full Council requested that the Cabinet and officers gave no further time to the preferred bidder who had not yet been able to finalise the deal and requested that they identify suitable organisations interested in operating the House and golf course in an integrated manner or the golf course as a separate entity.
24. As a result of the Council’s resolution, the Cabinet revisited their decision at a meeting on 4 August 2021. At the meeting, the Cabinet considered the will of full Council and the evidence presented in support of the proposal, contributions from councillors present at the meeting and technical information from officers in relation to the advertising and publicity undertaken and the credibility of the expressions of interest received.
25. The Cabinet noted that the proposed disposal of land had been properly advertised and processed in line with the Council’s normal procedures and that the expressions of interest received had failed to meet the specified criteria. The Cabinet decided it would be inappropriate to stop the process based on recently received emails expressing a general interest in running the golf course and the only reason to do so would be if there was a legitimate claim with enough investment available. The Cabinet stated the current process had been followed for over 18 months and, during that time, a potential purchaser had not been found. It therefore decided there were not sufficient grounds to overturn its decision of 11 September 2019.

Analysis

The decision to close the golf course

26. The Ombudsman cannot question councils’ legal rights to sell or otherwise dispose of land or question the merits of their decisions about whether and how to do it. We can, however, investigate complaints about administrative fault in the process.
27. I am satisfied the Council acted appropriately by completing a consultation exercise and an EOI exercise. I have found no fault in the way these exercises were carried out.
28. The Council made it clear that, to be successful, the bidders must, amongst other things, meet all the costs in setting up and operating the golf course. It was for the Council to decide what the requirements should be so there are no grounds to criticise this.
29. Of the four bids submitted in response to the EOI exercise, three specified a subsidy to be paid by the Council and so were eliminated in the scoring process as they did not meet the requirements. The fourth bidder did not specify an amount of subsidy required but inferred that financial support from the Council would be required stating, “the commercial returns and risks associated with operating a course in a public (sic) do not allow there to be a straightforward commercial investment opportunity. Growing the facility into new activities will require civic commitment”. So, that bid was also eliminated as it did not meet the requirements.
30. The Council says that, of the four bids received, some only provided basic or incomplete financial information. It also says there were unrealistic assumptions or omissions in the bids in relation to:
• the failure to appreciate the time, cost and resources to create new/replacement facilities considering the challenging planning environment associated with the park; and
• limited recognition regarding potential TUPE costs and issues.
31. The Council was entitled to decide that none of the bids met all the requirements. As part of the terms of the EOI exercise, it reserved the right not to accept any bid. The Council has provided copies of the scoring criteria which show how it reached its decision. In the absence of administrative fault, there are no grounds to question the Council’s decision to reject the bids and close the golf course.
32. The Cabinet subsequently considered a further bid but again decided it was not suitable. It was entitled to reach this decision.
33. Mr B says the decision to close the golf course was not approved by full Council. However, there is no requirement for full Council to approve the decision. Under the Council’s Constitution, full Council sets the annual budget and key policies whereas the Cabinet is responsible for the day-to-day running of the Council and has overall responsibility for services in the Council’s area. So, the Cabinet had authority to make the decision.
34. In response to the full Council resolution in July 2021, the Cabinet reconsidered the matter at a meeting in August 2021 but decided there were not sufficient grounds to overturn the decision made in September 2019. I have watched the recording of the Cabinet meeting. There was a lengthy discussion of the issues and the Cabinet provided reasons for its decision. In the absence of administrative fault, there are no grounds to question the decision.
35. Mr B says inaccurate statements were made by Cabinet Members at the meeting. However, I do not consider these statements affected the Cabinet’s decision. Members were fully aware of all relevant facts when making their decision.

Advertising

36. Mr B says the EOI exercise was not advertised in golf industry specific publications. However, there was no requirement for the Council to do so. The EOI exercise was advertised in a leisure industry publication and publicised on the Council’s website, at the golf shop on site and at the local library. A link to the Exercise was also included in the consultation document. In addition, the House and the opportunity to run the golf course alongside it was advertised in a local newspaper, the Estate’s Gazette, Property Week and on Rightmove. The international agent dealing with the marketing also offered the opportunity to clients on its mailing list who had expressed an interest in this type of property. I therefore find no grounds to criticise the way the EOI exercise was advertised.

Information in the EOI Exercise document

37. Mr B says the EOI exercise document did not include the inventory of machinery that had been included in the 2018 document issued to bidders during the sale process for the House. He says the inventory details machinery necessary to maintain a golf course and is worth a large amount of money. He says not having access to this machinery as part of a proposed lease would have had a detrimental impact on the bids submitted.
38. It is for the Council to decide what should be included in the proposed lease. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision.
39. Mr B says the Council quoted widely different numbers for the rounds of golf played at the golf course in the 2018 document issued to bidders for the purchase of the House and the 2019 document issued to bidders in the EOI exercise. He says this could have made a significant difference to the business cases made by those who put forward proposals to run the golf course.
40. The EOI information pack 2019 stated that 13,566 rounds of golf were played at the golf course in 2017/80 whereas the information pack prepared in May 2018 for the sale of the House stated that 31,552 rounds were played in the same period.
41. The Council has explained that the figures included in the May 2018 information pack included those rounds played by season-ticket holders (18,216). In reviewing the information for the EOI exercise, it considered the inclusion of these figures could be misinterpreted because season-ticket holders could play as many or as few times as they wished and these numbers were only estimated. So, the EOI information pack issued in 2019 only showed club usage (7,540) and green fee usage (5,796) together with the number of season tickets issued in that year. The income derived from the sale of the season tickets was included in the financial information in the EOI document.
42. I am satisfied with the Council’s explanation for the difference in the rounds of golf set out in the two documents.

Failure to answer Mr B’s questions

43. Mr B says the Council has failed to provide answers to the questions he raised about this matter.
44. I am satisfied officers have responded to Mr B’s queries. He has received correspondence from senior officers and had a telephone conversation with the Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic Director for Communities and Place. He has also received responses to his Freedom of Information Act requests for information. Mr B has also submitted questions at a full Council meeting which were responded to by a Cabinet Member. I appreciate Mr B may not be satisfied with the Council’s answers but that does not amount to fault.

Conclusion

45. I accept Mr B strongly disagrees with the decision to close the golf course. But I am satisfied on the evidence I have considered that the Council followed the proper process and considered all relevant facts when reaching its decision. In the absence of administrative fault, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the merits of the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I do not uphold Mr B’s complaint.
47. I have completed my investigation on the basis that I am satisfied with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman