The council assigned the development of a local tennis court as a category 2, which the complainants’ disagreed with. By the time the complainants discovered they could challenge the category of development assigned by the council, the Environment, Resource and Development Court ruled they were out of time. The Ombudsman found that the complainants’ had a right of review under section 86(1)(f) of the Development Act 1993 and that the council were wrong in not informing the complainants of this. The Ombudsman recommended that the council determine the best way of informing members of the public of this right, either on a case by case basis or as part of the development material it provides to the public throughout the development process.
The Ombudsman received a complaint from a former resident of a youth training centre (a juvenile) who had been assaulted by another resident whilst in the care of the department. The Ombudsman found that the department erred in failing to protect the complainant from the other resident. The department was aware the complainant had been threatened and that the other resident posed a risk to him. It was also found that the department erred in relation to investigating the alleged failure to protect the complainant.
The Ombudsman conducted an own initiative investigation following allegations that the Department of Education and Child Development had failed to appropriately deal with incidents of child sexual abuse at a particular state government school. The Ombudsman found that the department acted in a manner contrary to law and acted in a manner that was unreasonable.