Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s works to clear vegetation from a local wood, and how it dealt with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives in an area near Council-managed woods. She complains the Council:
1. wrongly cleared vegetation from the woods during an early spring in 2025;
2. failed to consider its biodiversity and statutory environmental duties;
3. has not consistently explained its reasons for doing the clearance work in its complaint replies;
4. delayed and made errors when dealing with her complaint.

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. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Miss X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X considers the Council’s woods clearance works damaged wildlife and biodiversity there. The Council says the main undergrowth plant it removed affected the native species necessary to increase the wood’s future biodiversity. Officers say its clearance plan was approved by the Forestry Commission, and the Rural Payments Agency which gave a grant for the works.
6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process they have followed to make their decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following a proper process.
7. There is not enough evidence of Council fault here to warrant us investigating. Officers took account of relevant information when making their plans to clear the vegetation from the woods. To confirm it complied with its legal environmental duties, the Council got its plan checked and supported by national organisations involved in woodland and rural management. That was an appropriate decision‑making process for the Council to follow. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decisions on the woods clearance works. But we cannot go behind the decision of the Council, and it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
8. Miss X says there would have been birds nesting in the cleared undergrowth because spring conditions came early. The Council says the period during which vegetation clearance and tree works can normally be done ends at the beginning of March each year but recognises there are seasonal variations. Officers advised that if any nesting birds had been found when the work was done in late February, they would have stopped. They say they found no nesting birds so did all the work. We understand Miss X’s concerns, but an investigation by us could not now find evidence of the works disturbing nesting birds. There is not enough evidence of Council fault on this issue to justify us investigating.
9. Miss X complains about the Council’s complaint handling, which involved delay and the content of its responses, including how it explained its checks for nesting birds. We note the problems with the Council’s complaint handling was a trigger for Miss X pursuing her complaint about the core issue, the works in the woods. The Council apologised for its delay in replying. In any event, we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
10. We note Miss X is concerned about future work the Council intends to do in the woods. The Council told Miss X of its plans in the second complaint response to her. We cannot investigate until a council has had appropriate opportunity to respond to a complaint. Miss X would need to make a complaint to the Council first about its further plans, and complete that complaints process, before we could consider this further matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman