Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of trees as part of a wider highway improvement scheme. We could not add to the Council’s response, and we are unlikely to achieve anything further for Mrs Y.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the Council’s decision to remove trees which were located near her property. She says the trees provided privacy and acted as a natural barrier to noise. Mrs Y is unhappy her property is now overlooked by the road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs Y and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs Y complained to the Council when trees and vegetation were removed near to her property boundary. She raised concerns over privacy, increased noise levels and air pollution. Mrs Y said the Council did not consult or communicate with residents prior to the work commencing.
6. The Council explained the area is public highway, and therefore it was permitted to remove the trees. It confirmed the tree removals were part of a wider highway improvement scheme. The Council confirmed during the concept design stage, two full-day public engagement sessions were held and he public were also encouraged to comment on proposals on its website. There was significant promotion of this across local media outlets, and posters were erected on lighting columns. I am satisfied the Council properly consulted and communicated with the public about the scheme.
7. However, on reviewing Mrs Y’s concerns, the Council acknowledged discrepancies between Computer-Generated Images (CGI) and technical drawings. One suggested the trees would remain in place, the other suggested they would be removed. It apologised to Mrs Y for any confusion caused by this, but confirmed the trees were meant to be removed and replanted. I am satisfied the Council provided an effective apology to Mrs Y in line with our guidance.
8. In response to Mrs Y’s concerns about increased noise, the Council conducted site visits. It accepted residents are more exposed to noise, though it is not deemed excessive. It agreed to erecting a temporary fencing to provide an immediate level of noise abatement. It also explained its plans to plant semi-mature trees and shrubs.
9. In response to Mrs Y’s concerns about safety, the Council explained it did not consider it appropriate to install a vehicle restraint system at the location. In response to Mrs Y’s concerns about air pollution, it explained there was no evidence suggesting air quality at her property would be worse because of the tree removals. It said the scheme is designed to smooth traffic flow and reduce emissions, improving air quality overall.
10. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mrs Y’s concerns. It took a proactive approach, and evidenced excellent complaint handling in its response. We could not add anything further to its response and we are unlikely to achieve anything further for Mrs Y. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
11. Whilst I understand Mrs Y feels her property is more exposed from the tree removal, the Council was entitled to remove its trees located on the public highway. Owning a property beside a public highway carries the risk that highway improvements may be made in the future, such as widening the road closer to residential boundaries. There is insufficient evidence of Mrs Y suffering significant personal injustice because of this.
12. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s response, and we are unlikely to achieve anything further for her. Mrs Y has also not suffered significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman