Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained about the Council’s decision to stop cutting the grass on the open space in front of their home. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault and Mr and Mrs B have not suffered a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council decided to include an area of land close to their home in its ‘Urban Meadows’ programme without consulting local residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr and Mrs B’s complaint and the correspondence between them and the Council.
5. I have also considered previous decisions made by the Ombudsman on complaints about the same issue made by other residents on Mr and Mrs B’s road.
6. I have written to Mr and Mrs B and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

7. Mr and Mrs B live opposite a grassed area of open space with trees in the middle. The grassed area runs the length of their road and has houses on both sides. The Council used to cut the grass regularly.
8. In 2018 the Council started a programme of reducing regular grass cutting at certain sites to create a ‘Urban Meadows’. This was part of a national initiative. Council officers discussed extending the programme at a meeting in December 2018 and recommended it be rolled out to other areas, including the open space in front of Mr and Mrs B’s home. In February 2019 Councillors accepted this recommendation and approved the scheme.
9. Mr and Mrs B complained to the Council in June 2019 saying the green space had become untidy and an ‘eyesore’ and that it was now difficult for dog walkers to clear up after their dogs. They also complained that the Council had not consulted residents about the changes.
10. The Council responded explaining it was taking a more pragmatic approach to grass cutting and introducing areas of longer grass, known as urban grassland meadows, that would only be mowed once a year. It explained this approach is being adopted across the UK to help support wildlife. It also explained that, where meadow grassland is adjacent to paths, a two metre strip would be cut along the path length to keep it easily accessible and lines would be cut where informal walking routes had been established. The Council also explained that a larger general play area had been mown into the site following feedback from residents.
11. Mr and Mrs B complained to the Ombudsman stating the Council had not followed its policy on consulting residents before making changes to the management regime of its green spaces.

Analysis

12. The Council’s policy on community green spaces states it will:
• ensure local people are actively engaged and involved in future development and maintenance of green spaces; and
• consult local residents on all major proposals which will have a potentially significant impact on the existing green space.
13. The Council decided consultation was not necessary here because this was an operational change rather than a change of use of the space.
14. Council officers discussed the potential savings of £20,000 against potential declining visual amenity and the Council’s reputational risk in not maintaining open spaces.
15. The Council issued a press release in a local newspaper in March 2019. It also posted information on social media and on its website. Site notices were displayed in July 2019. The aim of this information was to explain the biodiversity benefits of the scheme.
16. The Council’s policy is to engage with residents and consult on major changes. Changes to grass cutting regimes are not a major change to the use of the land. So, the Council was entitled not to consult residents. I therefore find no fault on the Council’s part.
17. The Council did engage with residents after the proposals were approved including putting up site notices, issuing a press release and posting information online. Following feedback from residents, it cut pathways through the grass to allow dog walking and cut a larger area shorter to allow children to play. The Council also gave residents wildflower seeds to plant to improve the appearance of the land.
18. I appreciate Mr and Mrs B are unhappy with the changes and consider the land to be untidy. But I do not consider they have suffered any significant personal injustice. They can still use the space and there has been no major change of use of the land.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I do not uphold Mr and Mrs B’s complaint.
20. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council was not at fault and Mr and Mrs B have not suffered a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman