Telford & Wrekin Council employee accused of taking fly-tipped items home

A bus shelter and a streetlight column were among the items photographed on the property of 'Mr X', as he is known in the anonymised document. However, after a meeting, his boss was “satisfied” they had not been council property, nor had Mr X obtained them during his duties there.

Mr B, from the property next door, initially complained about the “untidy” condition of Mr X’s farm in summer 2018. In a decision published this week, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman says it is “satisfied” the council investigated the planning and disciplinary aspects of the case fully, and found no fault.

Summarising the case, the report said: “Mr B alleged items being stored on the land were not relevant to the agricultural use of the land, so a material change of use had occurred.

“He alleged the landowner, Mr X, a council employee, was bringing home council waste materials and fly-tipped items. Mr B was concerned about the impact on his own property and on the public right-of-way passing through Mr X’s land.

“On September 4, 2018, planning enforcement officers visited the site. They concluded that, although it was untidy, it is an agricultural setting, so the land is not expected to be as tidy as a residential property.”

They decided planning regulations had not been breached, but wrote to Mr X giving him two months to tidy the land.

The report continued: “Mr X’s line manager met with him on September 18, 2018, to review photographs of various items on the site including: a bus shelter; a street lighting column; a traffic bollard; and pallets of bricks.

“Mr X explained how he had acquired the items. His manager then visited the site and inspected the items. He was satisfied there was nothing to suggest any of them had been council assets or obtained during the course of Mr X’s duties.”

Mr B contacted the council again the following January, saying “although Mr X had moved items around the site, none of the items he considered to be former council property had been removed and new items had been brought onto the land”.

Enforcement officers returned and found “significant improvement” since the previous autumn and “in the context of an agricultural working farm, there was no harm to the amenity of the area”.

Mr B made a formal complaint first to the council, then the LGO.

Ruling against Mr B, the report author said: “I am satisfied the council properly investigated the concerns.”

The report says officers’ investigations found “no grounds to justify enforcement action”, and added: “This is a matter for the officers’ professional judgment and, in the absence of administrative fault, there are no grounds to question that.

“I am also satisfied the council properly investigated Mr B’s allegations in terms of employee conduct.”