Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a licence to plant on the highway. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision making. The Council offered to replace the planting and waive the licence fee for Mr X and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to this or achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council cut his hedge and then changed the terms of his licence to plant in the highway. Mr X says this will cost him financially and he will not have the same level of privacy anymore. Mr X wants the Council to pay him compensation and let him keep the existing hedge.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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.

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

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X had a licence to plant in the highway in 2010. He planted laurel hedges near his property.
7. In 2025 the Council cut back the hedge to look for a utility service for a nearby property. Mr X complained the hedge was cut too severely. The Council accepted it cut too much of the hedge and discussed the matter with the staff involved. I understand Mr X’s frustration but the injustice caused by this part of the complaint is not significant enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.
8. The Council believed it was its own land and it had no record of Mr X having a licence to plant on its highway. Mr X proved he did have one. However, neither the Council or Mr X had a copy of the conditions of the licence. The conditions would have explained what plants were allowed and how high they could be.
9. The Council decided to formalise the licence with a new fresh licence. The new conditions say what plants are allowed and that a hedge should not be higher than 600 millimetres. It also requires Mr X to take out public liability insurance. The Council is entitled to specify what conditions it applies to a licence to plant in the highway. I am satisfied it has explained the reasons for its decision and we are unlikely to find fault with its approach.
10. Mr X said he has spent a lot of money on the hedge. He will now also have to pay a licence fee every five years and pay for public liability insurance.
11. The Council said it would remove the existing hedge and plant new shrubs at no cost to Mr X. It also agreed to waive the licence fee. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to this or achieve anything more for Mr X.
12. The Council is entitled to decide public liability insurance is required as a condition of a licence to plant on the highway. The planting was located on land accessible to the public and therefore carried a potential risk of injury or damage. The insurance requirement provides protection for both the public and the Council by ensuring that any valid claim arising from the planting could be met.
13. I understand Mr X held a licence in 2010 which was a one off fee and did not need to be renewed every five years. If the Council ask Mr X to renew and pay for another licence in five years time it is open to him to make a further complaint to the Council and come back to the Ombudsman if he is unhappy with its response.
14. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s licence to plant in the highway. The Council agreed to waive the costs associated with meeting the new licence conditions and therefore an investigation could not achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision making. It is also unlikely further investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman