Summary: There was no fault by the Council in how it decided to allow long grass to remain at a rewilded site.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council failed to properly assess the fire risk of leaving tall grass on an area close to Mr B’s home. He is concerned that tall grass poses a fire risk.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 considered the information provided by Mr B. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered the comments of both parties before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mr B lives in a residential area. Across the road from his house is open space owned by the Council. It decided to rewild part of the land and as part of this, it allowed tall grass to grow on the site. Mr B objected to this at the time, but the Council decided to go ahead with its plans. Mr B asked the Council to assess the fire risk of the long grass. The Council completed a risk assessment. It said any risk at the site is negligible and, in any case, the long grass of the rewilded area is not directly adjacent to residential properties.
6. Mr B told the Council it was wrong as the long grass goes right up to some houses. He suggested the Council take action to mitigate the risk such as leaving a buffer zone of shorter grass around the buildings.
7. The Council has sent me its risk assessment. This is for its entire area and is not specific to the rewilded area near Mr B’s home. The Council’s assessment says there are many areas of tall grass in its area. It says the tall grass retains higher levels of water and so the risk of fire spreading is reduced. Any dry vegetation can ignite but this is mainly due to human behaviour such as starting fires, dropping cigarette butts etc. The Council will increase public awareness of fire risk at time of dry weather.
8. In response to my enquiries, the Council has further explained that it cuts the grass around the boundaries of the site directly adjacent to residential properties, (Unless there are limitations with getting the machinery to these areas). It has checked the rewilded site close to Mr B’s home and it says there are small pockets of long grass but on the whole, it is cut tightly to the boundary of the properties. Mr B says that between mowing, the grass grows long adjacent to buildings. However, the Council has made clear that long grass is deemed an acceptable risk and so even if it is close to property, this does not affect its risk assessment or the management of the rewilded area.
9. The Council reviewed the risk assessment informally last year. It is due to implement a new inspection database and it will formally review the risk assessment before it is transferred to the new system.

Analysis

10. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not taken into account relevant information, or failed to properly explain why it has made a decision. We call this ‘administrative fault’, and if we find it, we can consider what difference the fault may have made to the outcome, and ask the council in question to remedy it.
11. However, we are not an appeal body; we do not have the power to overturn council decisions or replace them with our own. If a council has made a decision without fault, then we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly someone disagrees with that decision. We do not uphold complaints simply because somebody feels a council should have acted differently in a particular situation.
12. Mr B says the risk assessment should have been carried out by the fire authority. But there is no legal requirement that it should be. The Council has properly assessed the risk and has been able to explain its conclusions and how it has weighed up the relative risk on site against the benefit of rewilding the open space. There is no fault by the Council in how it has made this decision to let the long grass remain at the site, and so there is no basis for me to criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman