Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out public consultation on a proposed new play park. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Ms X, complains on behalf of a local group who want to preserve a local park from development. Ms X complains about how the Council consulted about the proposals, the information it provided on its website and about matters relating to a Section 106 agreement between the Council and a developer.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In 2019, a planning application from the Council was approved by another Local Authority to provide a new open space including a play park. In 2022, the Council launched a consultation exercise in which it asked residents what play equipment they would like to see on the play park. The Council gave residents three options and provided images of what the park would look like with the different equipment in place.
6. Ms X complains that the consultation was inadequate as it provided misleading information including the location of the play area and the trees surrounding the area. Ms X also complained about how the consultation was promoted, that it was open to abuse because people could vote more than once and that there were no guarantee that a developer would adhere to the Section 106 agreement in place to fund the new equipment.
7. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council consulted with residents. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It was for the Council to decide how it consulted with residents about its proposals. It added an online survey to its website, advertised on social media and also directly consulted with local schools. Whilst Ms X disagrees that this consultation was sufficient this does not mean the Council has done anything wrong. I will also not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the survey was open to abuse. This is because there is no evidence that abuse took place and therefore Ms X’s claim is speculative.
8. I will also not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the information provided on the Council’s website. The purpose of the consultation was solely to identify which equipment the public would like to see on the play area. Therefore, her concerns about the exact location of the play area and tree coverage are not relevant to the consultation. Therefore, there is no evidence that this issue caused her or anyone else any injustice.
9. Finally, I will not investigate how the Council responded to Ms X’s concerns about the developer’s duty to adhere to a Section 106 agreement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has said that there is a legal agreement in place. Any suggestion that the developer would not stick to that agreement is speculative.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman