Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s processes and decisions regarding the change of use of Council-owned land near Ms X’s home. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council failed to consult with residents on a change of use of Council-owned land near their homes which allows for additional recreational use on the land which, due to a change in the Council department managing the site, is now deemed to be public open space.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, including its response to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In responding to Ms X’s complaint about the use of the land, and particularly that residents were not consulted about one-off/ad hoc access to the site and its change of status to public open space, the Council accepted that the draft management plan it consulted on could have included explicit reference to the policy change which allows for applications for access to the site for one-off/ad hoc use.
6. It also accepted that letters sent to residents between 2019 and 2022 could have included an explanation of the site’s public open space policy status and its availability for one-off/ad hoc use.
7. However, it said that given the Council’s policy in allowing all of its public open space sites to be available for one-off/ad hoc use, there was no fault in not inviting residents to consider whether or not to allow such use when it recently consulted on the Management Plan for the site. It said it would have been inappropriate to have done so because the Council policy on this issue was not up for review and so it would have been misleading residents to give them the false impression that they could influence or change already adopted policy.
8. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. In this case, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
9. As an outcome to her complaint, Ms X wants the Council to change its policy and not to manage the land by her home as public open space to prevent it being available for one-off/ad hoc use. However, this is not an outcome an investigation by the Ombudsman can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman