Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council cutting back vegetation on a public footpath on part of her land without giving her prior notification. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council using its contractors to cut back vegetation on a footpath, part of which crosses her land. She says the whole 500 metre length of the path was cleared when a complaint to the Council only concerned a 10 metre part where there was nettle growth. She is concerned that the work may have disturbed nesting birds and damaged rare plants which benefit wildlife. She also says some branches were removed from trees overhanging the path.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(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 Mrs X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s responses. Mrs X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X says the Council’s contractors arrived on her land in August 2020 and cleared vegetation form a length of the right of way which runs over it. Some of the path is a conservation area and the work was carried out without any prior notification to her. She says only a small section of the path was overgrown with nettles and that the full cut back of the path and removal of branches was unnecessary. She is concerned that nesting birds and other wildlife, as well as rare plants may have been damaged.
5. The Council says the path was reported as overgrown by a member of the public and it has a statutory duty under the Highways Act to maintain highways and footpaths for free passage. The contractors were working in the area and the Council has a responsibility to maintain the whole of the footpath. The contractors were experienced in working on biodiverse sites and the work took place on 17 August, after the end of the bird nesting season in July.
6. There is no requirement for a highway authority to notify the landowner and whilst this may be a courtesy to do so, it is not always possible. The Council says it only cut the trodden area of the path and that no pants were uprooted. Only small branches which obstructed the right of way were removed. Mrs X says the Council should have carried out a biodiversity assessment. It says that this was not development and that there is no requirement for one for this type of maintenance.
7. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. In this case the Council carried out the work following a complaint by the public and there were no requirements to notify the landowner.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman