Summary: Dr B complains the Council committee which considered the application to register land as a village green was not well briefed. He also says the conduct of the committee and decision-making was below the standard he expected. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we achieve the outcome Dr B is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Dr B, complains the Council’s Planning and Regulation Committee (the Committee) was not well briefed and the membership of the Committee aroused a suspicion of bias. He says the conduct of the Committee as a whole, and the decision-making process was below the standard he expected. This undermines his confidence in the Council’s decision.
2. Dr B wants the village green decision to be revoked and the application to register the land transferred to another authority. Alternatively, he would like another committee to consider the matter with robust procedures to ensure fully briefed unbiased and knowledgeable councillors engage in quality debate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Dr B which includes the Council’s response to his complaint. I also considered the Committee papers available on the Council’s website.
6. Dr B commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. An application was made to register land where Dr B lives as a village green. The land is owned by the Council which has applied to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for planning permission to build houses on it. As the Council objected to the proposal, a Public Inquiry was held, chaired by an Independent Inspector.
8. Following the Inquiry, the Inspector prepared a report on his findings. He recommended the Committee refused the application to register the land as a village green because it does not meet all the required statutory tests.
9. The official minutes of the meeting show the Committee members discussed the application, including the Independent Inspector’s report, asking questions of officers. A motion not to accept the Inspector’s recommendation and to register the land as a village green was proposed and lost. Having discussed the matter, the Committee voted to accept the recommendation and refuse the application. The minutes show there were 7 votes for refusal, 4 against and 1 abstention.
10. Dr B complained to the Council about:
• the perception of bias due to a Councillor who is also a member of the LPA taking part in the debate
• a general lack of familiarity with the report by Councillors who voted against registering the application
• a Councillor had suggested for good governance the application should have been referred to a different authority for a decision
• inaccurate statements made by Councillors; and
• a lack of experience in deciding applications to register land as village greens
11. Complaints about the conduct of committee meetings do not fall within the Council’s corporate complaints procedure. Therefore, the Council’s Monitoring Officer responded to Dr B’s complaint. He stated:
• A Councillor present at the meeting is also a district councillor for the Local Planning Authority (LPA) that will decide the Council’s planning application for homes on the site. This Councillor was not involved in the Council’s decision to apply for planning permission to build homes on the site. Nor had the application been considered by the LPA.
• While such applications are rare, it had been subject to an Independent Public Inquiry. The report made by the Independent Inspector detailed all relevant facts and law and was available to Members before the meeting. The Inspector recommended refusal. The minutes show the Members engaged in discussion before voting to accept the recommendation.
• The Independent Inspector had recommended refusal because the application did not meet all the necessary statutory tests. There may have been individual inaccuracies during the debate which were unfortunate. However, this does not mean the final decision was flawed.
• The requirement for the Council to decide village green applications is set out in law. The Committee carries out the responsibility for the Council.
12. I understand Dr B is not satisfied with what he considers to be poor quality decision making and debate. However, the Council has followed the process which we expect to see when considering an application for registering a village green. Because it owns the land and objected to the registration, the Council arranged a Public Inquiry and engaged a qualified Independent Inspector to head the inquiry and produce a detailed report.
13. The Council is not required to transfer the responsibility for decisions affecting its own land to another authority.
14. The relevant Council Committee considered the report. The Committee was quorate and, despite Dr B’s concerns about quality, the Committee members had access to the application and report before the meeting. Minutes which have been accepted as a correct record of the meeting show Councillors engaged in a discussion about the application before coming to a vote. The outcome of the vote was to accept the Inspector’s recommendation and refuse the application.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. It is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s actions and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Nor can the Ombudsman achieve the outcome Dr B is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman