Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s processing of a village green application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made the decision to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not follow the correct procedure and did not consider relevant case law when it rejected his application to register a piece of land as a village green. He said he has had to consider legal routes due to the Council’s refusal to explain its decision and the community has lost the opportunity for proper consideration of the status of a well-used space. He wanted the Council to reconsider his application, issue a decision notice and provide evidence regarding ownership of the land in question.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. When a person or a group wish to create and register a new village green, they must have regard to the Commons Act 2006, as amended in 2013.
6. The amended Act states that when a council receives such an application, it must consult the relevant planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate to ensure there have been no ‘trigger events’ to prevent the application going ahead. Trigger events relate to the development of the land and include matters such as the land being identified for potential development within a neighbourhood plan.
7. If a trigger event has taken place, it removes the right for someone to apply to create a new village green on the land in question.
8. Mr X applied to the Council as the Commons Registration Authority to register a piece of land as a village green.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s application and decided the piece of land in question was subject to a trigger event because it had been listed as land for potential development within a neighbourhood development plan. The Council told Mr X in writing that his application had been rejected.
10. Mr X disputed the Council’s rejection of his application. The Council sought legal opinions which referenced relevant case law and supported the Council’s view that a trigger event had occurred. The Council shared these opinions with Mr X.
11. The Council told Mr X that a decision notice would only be issued if his village green application had been accepted. As the Council rejected Mr X’s application, no decision notice was required. Mr X was informed of the Council’s reasons for rejection in writing.
12. 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 an organisation 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 organisation made.
13. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when it decided to reject Mr X’s village green application. It explained why it had rejected Mr X’s application because a trigger event had occurred to prevent the application going ahead. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made this decision to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how it made the decision to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman