Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s decision to close a golf course was flawed. Although a change of practice has affected its calculations of profit and loss since the decision was made, we found, on balance, the decision the Council took did not represent fault and the outcome would not have been different.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council decided to close a golf course it owned and to lease the land to a third party. He complains the Council failed to consult appropriately on its decisions, the accounts showing losses were flawed and exaggerated the losses. He also complains the Council failed to properly consider the likely future profitability of the golf club.

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 spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided and the complaint he made. I asked the Council for information, and I considered its response to the complaint.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council has owned the golf course that features in Mr X’s complaint for around 30 years. In 2018 the Council reached a decision to lease the site, maintaining some control over its use and development.
7. In 2019 the Council decided it should market the site again, broadening the uses that it may allow, appropriate to its green belt location.
8. Mr X stated that pay as you play golfers were not members of the club. He considered as a result, they were inadequately consulted. The Council met with and consulted local interest groups and golf club members. The Council also sent us a copy of a poster erected at the club to advise the public more widely what was happening. The poster carried an email address and explained who the Council was consulting. Mr X told us the poster was not in a prominent enough position.
9. The decision to market the site was made by the portfolio holder for property & assets. A report proposing the leasing of the site was sent to councillors and it was called into the Council’s Constitution, Overview and Scrutiny Committee for discussion in March 2019. The request to call-in the decision stated this was to examine why the current golf course business was failing, which was not clear from the report.
10. When the committee calls in a decision, it has three options. It can confirm the decision should stand. It can refer the decision back to the decision maker for reconsideration, or it can refer the decision to full council.
11. The minutes of the committee meeting set out the reasons for calling the decision in. An officer provided information to the committee and the issue was discussed. A report to the committee set out financial information including income and expenses. The report stated the site was loss making and it set out the extent of this. It also noted that the golf industry in general was in decline and that competition with private clubs was difficult. The committee decided the decision should stand.
12. The deadline for receiving bids for leasing the site ended in March 2020. The golf course was also closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of its decision in 2019 to lease the site, the Council decided not to reopen it.

Mr X’s complaint

13. Mr X complained to the Council about the decision in May 2021. He complained there had been a failure to consult with the main users of the course; pay‑as-you-play golfers. He complained the wrong financial data was used to consider the issue and he stated no proper forecast of future profitability was made.
14. Mr X set out in detail why he considered the figures used to assess the costs and losses incurred by the golf course were incorrect. His concerns included how much and what centralised council costs were attributed to the running the golf course, how business rates were considered and how assets and depreciation issues were dealt with. He stated that there had been an uplift in golf rounds being played as a result of the end of the COVID-19 lockdown. He felt this should be reflected in a future assessment of profitability.
15. The Council told Mr X that it considered it appropriate to reflect overheads that were part of the golf course running costs. It recognised that there was a rise in golf rounds played once the first lockdown ended. However, the Council stated that the income from green fees had been in a downward trend and it could not be assumed that the rise following lockdown would be sustained. The Council did not agree its decision should change.
16. In response to our enquiries the Council told us the golf course costs had been included in it’s statutory accounts in line with recommended SORP (Statement of Recommended Practice) set out in the CIPFA Accounting code of practice. However, the Council stated it had, since its decision, revised the way it calculated capital charges such as these. It stated that applying this to the figures used for the golf course would reduce the overall losses it calculated from £1.1m to £860k. The Council noted that there remained significant losses. Despite the change, Mr X maintained his view that the golf club’s expenditure had been overstated. He also proposed a forecast that would uplift income from membership and rounds played.

17. The Council noted there was a potential increase in the popularity of golf following the end of the first lockdown. However, this did not give it grounds to reverse its decision.

Was there fault by the Council

18. The original decision to lease the golf course site was taken in 2018. We have considered events from 2019. When the Council re-marketed the site in 2019 it did consult with local groups, and contacted golf club members. Mr X noted that the pay-as-you-play golfers who were not members, were not consulted directly. However, the Council provided a copy of a poster erected at the site making people aware of the plans. Although I appreciate Mr X considered further measures should have been taken, the Council did carry out consultation as part of the decision-making process. I do not consider there was fault in this regard. The Council also followed the appropriate process for making its decision, which was called into a committee for scrutiny.
19. Mr X has explained to the Council and the Ombudsman why he considers the Council should have treated operational costs, capital and depreciation differently. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because someone takes a different view or they disagree with it. We consider if there was maladministration by the Council which caused an injustice to someone.
20. The Council advised us that since reaching its decision, its approach to calculating capital charges has changed. Applying the revised approach does affect the extent of the losses attributable to the golf course.
21. Mr X showed us a revised set of accounts with amendments he believes to be a more accurate assessment of costs. These are significantly lower than those the Council set out, even after the amendment I refer to above.
22. However, even allowing for the changes Mr X considered appropriate to expenditure, the net result would still represent a loss unless there was an increase in income. I acknowledge that Mr X suggested that there could be an increase in membership and green fees. However, this was speculative. The Council did not consider, in 2020 when it made the decision to close the course, that this represented grounds to alter its decision. As it stood, without this increase in income, the premise of the decision (that the golf course was loss making) was not changed.
23. Although the Council’s approach has changed, these are detailed calculations about notional values attributed to assets. On balance, I do not consider there are grounds for a finding of fault in the way the decisions about the golf course were reached. This is because I do not consider there was maladministration or that the outcome, the decision to close the course, is likely to have been affected.
24. I understand why Mr X considered future projections of the profitability of the golf course could be different if trends following the first lockdown were maintained. However, whether this would be significant enough to change the profitability was a speculative argument. I do not consider the Council was at fault when it decided this was not sufficient to warrant a re-assessment of its position.

Back to top

Final decision

25. On balance, we have not found fault in the Council’s decision. I have now completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman