Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council consulted with the community on a proposed sports facility. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Ms X says the Council failed to carry out appropriate consultation with the local community on proposals for a sports facility. She says the documents provided, the Council Officers present at a local exhibition and representatives of the investors did not give a balanced view. Instead, she says all information promoted the proposals.
2. Ms X also complains about the Council’s complaints procedure.
3. Ms X wants the development to be stopped while an independent investigation takes place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In 2019 the Council approved the site as one of four areas to be developed as all-weather multi sports pitches. This was subject to full planning permission being granted.
8. In response to the deferment of the decision on the planning application by the planning committee, the Council provided information and held an exhibition for the public.
9. Ms X says the Council Officers who led the consultation on the proposed development were not impartial. Instead, she says they promoted the scheme.
10. The Council says its Officers were promoting the decision taken by elected Members to “provide a sports hub that meets the needs of the wider community and provides the range of spaces and opportunities needed to promote healthy active lifestyles in line with the council’s Best City Ambition and the Health & Wellbeing and Inclusive Growth Strategies.”
11. While it is clear Ms X disagrees with the Council’s proposal for the sports facility, I have not seen enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. The consultation is not a referendum. The results of a consultation may inform a council’s decision but ultimately it a matter of judgement for the council to decide how to proceed.
12. Ms X also complains the Council’s complaints procedure is not impartial. We expect a Council to follow its complaints procedure. However, we do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to the complainant because of any possible failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman