Summary: Mrs X complains the Council refuses to remove a tree which she says is dangerous as it obstructs the visibility when entering and exiting her driveway. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint as we have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council is failing in it's duty of care to provide a qualified review of the visibility sightlines caused by the encroachment of a street tree into her dropped kerb. She notified the Council of the hazard saying it compromises public safety because it impairs visibility sightlines. She also complains the Council is failing to maintain the vehicle crossover.
2. She says that if, after a quallified review the visibility sightlines are found to compromise public safety, the Council should with remove the tree or relocate the crossing.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mrs X and the Council’s procedures on vehicle crossovers and trees.
5. Mrs X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council’s procedure for dealing with trees on Council owned land says it has a legal obligation to deal with trees:

“affecting public access or highway safety – where there is a risk to the public from overhanging branches (therefore, affecting the line of sight of both drivers and pedestrians) the council will cut back branches”

7. Mrs X complained to the Council that a tree on the pavement outside her house has grown so large that it encroaches into the area of her dropped kerb which she shares with her neighbour. She says the tree is obstructing the passage of vehicles and interferes with view of drivers entering and exiting her driveway.
8. The Council inspected the site. It says its tree officer confirms the tree is a healthy specimen which has reached its full growth potential and is unlikely to get any larger.
9. Its highways officer is satisfied that those accessing Mrs X’s home with due care and attention should not be affected by the tree. He also confirmed that it is not obstructing highway users walking along the footway.
10. Because of these findings the Council considers the tree is not a danger to highway users and will not remove it.

Assessment

11. The Council made its decision after considering Mrs X’s complaint and after inspecting the tree. She is unhappy with the quality of the inspection leading to the decision.
12. The Ombudsman is not an expert in highways safety. However, we can consider whether the Council has properly considered decisions that affect vehicle crossovers, or lengths of highway. But we cannot ourselves arbitrate on Mrs X’s view about how the site should be inspected and the Council’s. From the information supplied it seems that the Council has given proper thought to Mrs ’s request and concerns and I have seen no sign of procedural irregularity which would allow us to question the its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. We have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council arrived at its decision that the tree outside her home is not a danger to highway users.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman