Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to properly respond and take effective action in response to his reports of overgrown vegetation affecting the public highway. Mr C says the view when accessing the highway is obscured as is a nearby streetlight. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains the Council has failed to properly respond and take effective action in response to his reports of overgrown vegetation and overhanging branches affecting the public highway from October 2018 to date.
2. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault, the view when accessing the highway is obscured which is a danger to highway users and a nearby streetlight is also obscured.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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

6. I read the papers provided by Mr C including photographs and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mr C after removing third party details. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.
7. Mr C said he had reported problems of overgrown vegetation to the Council in 2017. Mr C did not complain to the Ombudsman until October 2019. A complaint about the events in 2017 would be caught by the restriction set out at paragraph 4 above. However, as the matter was ongoing I exercised the discretion available to me to investigate events from October 2018.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Section 154 of the Highways Act 1980 allows highway authorities to take action about vegetation or trees overhanging the highway. This allows it to remove growth which could injure pedestrians, damage vehicles or obscure signs, signals or street lighting. The powers are limited to growth which crosses over the highway boundary.
9. Mr C reported the view when leaving his road was obstructed by overgrown vegetation in May 2017. The Council visited the site.
10. The Council considered that cutting back the hedge would improve visibility for residents exiting the private road to join the highway. The Council issued hedge cutting notices under the above legislation at the end of May 2017 to two residents either side of the junction at the end of the private road.
11. Mr C chased progress in June. The Council advised it did not consider the road to be a busy road and would not prioritise the matter. Mr C disputed this claim and stated the posted speed limit of 20mph was often exceeded.
12. One owner agreed in June to cut their hedge back after the end of the bird nesting season. There was no reply from the other owner. The Council sent a reminder in August confirming it was the responsibility of the landowner to keep the hedge maintained so that the visibility splay was free from obstruction.
13. The Council responded to a formal complaint from Mr C in August 2017. The Council confirmed the highway boundary was about 0.5 metre and 0.8 metre from the main road edge at the respective properties.  The visibility splay for the small development where Mr C lived had not been taken into the highway as the road was a private road.  As the road was not adopted the visibility splay would be for the residents of the development to maintain. The Council had no power to complete works on the area of private land over which the hedge had grown. The Council considered it would be damage to private property if it cut back the hedge beyond the highway boundary which is where the bulk of the overgrowth existed. The Council provided the Ombudsman’s contact details to Mr C.

Key events from October 2018

14. Mr C reported overgrown vegetation obscuring the view when exiting the private road onto the highway again to the Council in August 2018. Mr C sought a site meeting as he did not accept the hedge was only affecting his private road but also the highway.
15. The Council responded in September to Mr C. The Council referred to its previous responses on this issue and that the hedge was on a private road and it would the responsibility of the landowner to take action.
16. The Council has confirmed to the Ombudsman that it does not consider it would be appropriate to spend scarce public funds on cutting back a private hedge where it was unlikely to recover its costs.
17. The Council does not consider a further site inspection would be worthwhile in these circumstances and proposes no further action.
18. I cannot say the Council has acted with fault in not taking further action in response to Mr C’s more recent report. The Council has referred to its previous site visit, correspondence with neighbours and explanation of why it proposed no further action. This is essentially that the overhanging vegetation obscuring Mr C’s view when exiting the private road is not overhanging the highway. The visibility splays of the development do not form part of the adopted highway. The Council has no authority to enter private land to remove the vegetation.
19. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr C has referred to a streetlight now being obscured although this was not included in his report to the Council. I do not consider this causes Mr C a significant personal injustice but I will ask the Council to inspect the streetlights at this location as part of its routine highway inspection schedule to see if any action is required on the highway.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman