Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Planning : : Planning archive 2007-08 : : Fareham Borough Council (06B16269)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Fareham Borough Council (06B16269)

Trees                                              Maladministration causing injustice

31 March 2008

Fareham Borough Council failed to keep a tree preservation order up to date, leading to uncertainty over protection of a woodland area. The Ombudsman says “An up to date TPO would have removed any ambiguity about which trees were protected and sent out a clear signal to the landowner and the public about the Council’s renewed resolve to safeguard the character of the land and its value as woodland.”

‘Mr Green’ (not his real name for legal reasons) says that the Council failed to prevent the unauthorised cutting down and clearance of trees that were the subject of Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) near his home in March 2006.

The Ombudsman is not persuaded that the Council could have prevented the work that the landowner carried out or that it could have successfully challenged his actions as a breach of statutory tree preservation controls.

However, the Ombudsman does find that the Council failed to act on Government guidance about older TPOs, in particular it failed to review a 1976 TPO that, because of its age, did not take account of the significant growth at the site over 30 years that had reinforced its significance as woodland.

In addition, the Council:

  • failed to contact the Forestry Commission after the landowner told him of the works he planned to carry out; and
  • gave incorrect information to a county councillor, based on a lack of understanding of the Forestry Commission’s role, on the scope for the Council to take action before and after the works began.

The Ombudsman says “These failures go to the heart of the injustice claimed by Mr Green and his view that the Council could have done much more to protect the trees at [the site] and the amenity of adjoining residents. He does not know whether there might have been a different outcome if the Council had kept under active review which trees were protected on the land at the rear of his home.”

But the Ombudsman does not conclude that the Council’s maladministration has caused Mr Green a wholly unacceptable loss of amenity, because, even with proper safeguards in place, the landowner may have legitimately brought about some change in appearance at the site.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommend the Council to:

  • pay Mr Green the sum of £750 for his outrage, uncertainty and time and trouble in pursuing his concerns about the lawfulness of the works;
  • review the likely effectiveness, as screening, of the current replacement planting along the site boundary and, if necessary, fund the provision of further planting; and
  • review the authority’s procedures for keeping TPOs up to date.

Date Updated: 16/01/09