Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s planting of an area of his local park with woodland saplings which he says was inappropriate. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice arising from fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s planting of saplings in his local park. He says the area chosen was inappropriate and has spoiled his enjoyment of walking in that area. He also says the saplings planted in 2019 were neglected by the Council which resulted in a high percentage of them dying.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says the Council planted tree saplings in an area of his local park without consultation with local residents in 2019. He believes the area chosen was not appropriate and the planting has spoiled his enjoyment of the site. He did not complain at the time of planting.
5. In 2020 Mr X complained to the Council because he noted that most of the saplings had died and the plastic tubing which protected them was now an eyesore. The Council advised him that the original planting was publicised on the Council’s website and that the park is used by residents throughout the borough. It planted the area as part of its woodland and biodiversity project and the site was chosen as the most appropriate.
6. The Council has plans to replant the site and reuse surviving saplings. It has welcomed Mr X’s views and will be taking advice from the Woodland trust on the future planting.
7. The planting was undertaken as part of the Council’s management of the site and it is not the Ombudsman’s role to question the professional views of the Council’s officers where there is no fault. The Council says an exceptionally dry year led to the loss of many saplings, but some were found to have survived. It cannot cater for all requirements of public users and the planting was only affecting 20% of the site.
8. I do not consider there is sufficient personal injustice caused to Mr X as a member of the public which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice arising from fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman