Statement Upheld Rights of way 19-Apr-2022
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to determine a map modification application which concerns public rights of way. The Council has delayed forwarding the definitive map modification order application to the Secretary of State and has advertised a wrong date for making representations against the application Mrs X complained about. That said, we cannot provide the outcome Mrs X wants as the Council has a plan in place for addressing its backlog and we cannot direct its financial resources in this respect. Our investigation is now complete.
Statement Upheld Rights of way 10-Nov-2021
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact creation of a road would have on a public right-of-way and failed to respond to the nine questions he posed on behalf of local residents' groups. There is no fault in how the Council considered the impact the road would have on the public right-of-way. The Council failed to respond to the complaint properly. An apology and payment to Mr X is satisfactory remedy.
Statement Not upheld Rights of way 14-Sep-2021
Summary: Mr C complains the Council has failed to ensure the public can fully use the public rights of way network in his local area which means he and other residents cannot properly access them. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.
Statement Upheld Rights of way 10-Aug-2021
Summary: Mr X is acting on behalf a bridleway association. He has made a complaint about the Council for failing to determine a number of map modification applications which concern public rights of way. The Ombudsman has found fault that the Council has failed to determine the applications as directed by the Secretary of State. That said, we cannot provide the outcome Mr X wants as the Council has a plan in place for addressing its backlog and we cannot direct its financial resources in this respect. Further, we do not consider the complainant has suffered a personal and significant injustice by reason of the fault by the Council.
Statement Upheld Rights of way 06-Jul-2021
Summary: Mr B complains the Council have not consulted properly about access to land before replacing a gate on a cycle route. The Council did not consult properly before it replaced the gate. Mr B and other cyclists have lost the opportunity to comments on the changes and have suffered a loss of access. The Council has agreed to consult on the changes, retake its decision and issue guidance to staff.
Statement Not upheld Rights of way 28-May-2021
Summary: Mr and Mrs F complain about the Councils' actions in relation to public rights of way. The Ombudsman cannot investigate some elements of this complaint and could not achieve anything from further investigation of other elements. We have therefore used our discretion to discontinue the investigation.
Statement Upheld Rights of way 27-Apr-2021
Summary: Mr X says there was an error in a legal document he completed to make a compensation claim against the Council. The Ombudsman discontinued investigation of this complaint because Mr X did not suffer an injustice that warrants a remedy from the Ombudsman.
Statement Not upheld Rights of way 21-Apr-2021
Summary: Mr X complains about the extension by the Council of a Temporary Closure Order for a local public footpath. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the process the Council followed to extend the order.
Statement Upheld Rights of way 03-Feb-2021
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's handling of her request to modify the Definitive Map to include some paths she uses regularly as public rights of way. The Council delayed responding to Ms X's application and failed to tell her about her right to appeal its decision to the Secretary of State. The Council should apologise, make a new decision giving appeal rights and pay Ms X £150.
Statement Upheld Rights of way 15-Jan-2021
Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not take action to prevent an Academy School closing a footpath used by parents to access an Infant School. We uphold the complaint finding the Council did not properly consider the impact of the closure on users of the path when it decided not to take legal action against the Academy. We also its reply to Mr B's complaint was misleading. These faults caused Mr B injustice. Because it is uncertain if the Council would have taken the same approach but for its fault and he was put to unnecessary time and trouble in this matter. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we set out action it has agreed to remedy this injustice.