Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a recent planning application by Ms X’s neighbour and its decision not to impose a condition to protect Ms X’s boundary hedge and trees. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that while the Council imposed a condition on her neighbour’s 2017 planning application which protected her hedge and trees, it refused to do the same for a current application. She says the Council failed to make reference to the 2017 application in the officer report for the current application and that it disregarded the Town Council’s recommendation that a condition be put in place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2017 the Council attached a planning condition to Ms X’s neighbour’s planning permission which protected trees within and around the development site, including Ms X’s hedge and trees.
7. When the Council granted planning permission more recently for further development at the site, Ms X complained to the Council that it had not imposed the same condition to protect her hedge and trees.
8. The Council explained it had considered Ms X’s request, and that of the Town Council, in relation to imposing a condition but had decided it was not necessary or reasonable to do so. It acknowledged that the previous 2017 application had in error been missed out from the planning history in the case officer report but said the officer had been aware of it and the issue regarding Ms X’s hedge and trees.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question their decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council considered matters but decided not to impose a condition to protect Ms X’s hedge. This is a decision it was entitled to make and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman