The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: X complained about the Council’s actions where it repeatedly, over the years, mowed down an area of growing bee orchids. We found the Council at fault with its actions which caused significant frustration to X. The Council agreed to send us evidence of its investigations into the matter and an action plan to prevent future recurrence of this fault.
The complaint
X complains the Council has, over the past few years, cut down a large colony of bee orchids when in the growing stages. X said the Council accepted its mistakes with this previously and said it would act to prevent it happening in future. However, it had done it several times again before X made another formal complaint. X says the orchids are legally protected and the Council's destruction of them has caused them significant frustration.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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 34H(1), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I discussed the complaint with X and considered their views.
I considered the Council’s responses to X’s complaints.
X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
Background
X complains about the actions of the Council towards a colony of bee orchids growing on public land.
In spring 2024, X made a formal complaint to the Council. X said they contacted various councillors to make them aware of the importance of bee orchids growing. X asked the Council not to mow the area for a month so the orchids could flower. X said the Council agreed with this and it instructed its cutting crew to avoid the area until flowering was complete. X said three days later, they visited the area and found it had been mown down. X wanted the Council to investigate.
The next month, the Council responded and upheld X’s complaint. It could not give a clear explanation for why the area had been cut down again. It was an error by the operatives, despite being reminded of the need to avoid the area. It followed internal processes with the individual concerned. The Council said it arranged for wooden bollards to be placed on the verge to prevent the area being cut down by a ride on mower in future. It apologised and hope X was satisfied with the measures to reduce the risk of it happening again.
What happened – summary of key relevant events In spring 2025, X made another formal complaint to the Council. X said for the third year in a row, the Council had mown down the emerging bee orchids. X pointed out these were legally protected. X said the constant mowing would damage their ability to regrow and their numbers would diminish.
X referred to their previous formal complaint where the Council told them it would ensure it did not happen again and mentioned wooden bollards. X said none had been erected.
The next month, the Council responded at Stage 1. It apologised and took full responsibility for the error and regretted the distress caused. It would erect the bollards at the area and would retrain its operatives.
X escalated their complaint. X said some bollards had been put in on the incorrect panel to the area, which is not where the orchids were. X expressed significant frustration and did not think the Council was taking it seriously.
The Council responded at Stage 2. It apologised for the distress and frustration with the repeated mowing during known flowering periods. It said it was clear there was some confusion about the specific location of the orchids if the installation was not at the correct place. It said it was a serious oversight and would investigate. It would review operational schedules, contractor instructions and ecological guidance. It would consider if had breached the legal protection of the orchids and decide if any other safeguards were necessary. It would appoint a senior officer to conduct a review of the site management.
X then complained to us. When I spoke to X, they said the wooden bollards were still not in the correct place. They said they had not been contacted by the Council to show it, or clarify the location of, the orchids. X said it was not that the orchids could never be cut, but it was about the timings of the mowing. They said it should not be done before late summer to allow the orchids to grow and establish.
X said they visited the area early last month and noted large numbers of rosettes starting to grow. They hoped the Council would leave them alone to be able to bloom spectacularly later in the year.
Analysis From what I’ve seen, the Council has acted with fault for at least two consecutive years. In 2024, it accepted its operatives had mown the area despite reminders being given. The Council also said it would act to install measures to prevent this, but it did not follow up on this.
This was further compounded the following year, in 2025, as X reported the Council had done it again on at least another two occasions. This led to a second formal complaint. The Council later put bollards in place; however X said it was not where the orchids were. Understandably, this lessened X’s confidence in the Council. These faults have caused X significant frustration over the years, especially given the legally protected status of the orchids.
I am satisfied the Council’s final complaint response in 2025 gave serious consideration to X’s repeated concerns. It sincerely apologised and recognised the impact of its actions. On this basis, I consider the apology is sufficient for X’s personal injustice.
But the main concern for X is that the Council does not mow the orchids prematurely again this year. As an outcome to X’s 2025 complaint, the Council said a senior officer would conduct a Stage 2 investigation and follow up on specific matters around this, including if additional safeguards were needed.
It is not clear if the Council has completed this exercise since. One of the issues it said it would investigate is site identification. X said to me the bollards are still not in the right place. This raises questions about the Council’s commitment to this if it has still not yet identified or acted on the correct location for any protective measures.
I also expect this decision will bring these matters to the attention of the Council and put it to notice again about these recurring issues.
Agreed Action
The Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision: It should send us a copy of the internal Stage 2 investigation it carried out after X’s 2025 formal complaint which should detail its actions, evidence found, its findings and any outcomes from the time; and It should share with us an action plan of any additional measures it will/has put in place, along with any evidence. This could include considering where it should put the bollards, whether it puts up signs, or whether it should conduct a period of monitoring. The Council should demonstrate how it has satisfied itself its measures will stop this happening again.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Decision I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations. I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman