Trees


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Harrow (18 005 368)

    Statement Upheld Trees 03-May-2019

    Summary: Mr K complains about a charge the Council made for replacing a tree that needed removing to carry out a planning permission. He says the Council should never have planted the tree there. Mr K also complains about the Council's complaint handling. The Ombudsman has upheld the part of the complaint about the complaint handling and has asked the Council to apologise.

  • Charnwood Borough Council (18 000 594)

    Statement Upheld Trees 02-May-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to keep Mr X informed when it decided to issue a TPO on his clients but later reversed that decision. The Council should write to Mr X to apologise and pay him £150 for avoidable frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble caused. There was no fault in advice the Council gave Mr X about work to trees in a conservation area.

  • East Devon District Council (18 010 423)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 09-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to use proper process when deciding not to include a tree in an adjacent garden in a tree preservation order. The Ombudsman does not find the Council to be at fault.

  • Cambridge City Council (18 005 229)

    Statement Upheld Trees 14-Mar-2019

    Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's decision to grant planning permission for a residential development with balconies which overlook her property. The Council has accepted fault in the way it communicated with Miss X and has apologised. I have discontinued my investigation into how the Council dealt with the planning permission and possible enforcement action as the Council is still actively considering these matters.

  • Ribble Valley Borough Council (18 012 966)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 07-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council responded to the cutting down of two trees which had tree preservation orders on them. He also complained about the way the Council handled his complaint about the issue. The Ombudsman has stopped investigating the complaint because Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council's actions.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (17 018 870)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 27-Feb-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman does not find the Council acted with fault in refusing to carry out works to trees next to residents' homes.

  • Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (18 006 405)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 19-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr C says the Council should not have approved a development which, he says, will damage a tree near his property. The Council was not at fault. The Council tree officer's decision that the development posed minimal risk to the tree was a professional one open to him on the facts.

  • Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (18 011 168)

    Statement Not upheld Trees 15-Feb-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council wrongly allowed the felling of protected trees as an exception to the Tree Protection Order Regulations. As the works were carried out by a gas provider, the exemption applied and an application was not needed. The Council has also taken steps to ensure replanting takes place. Ms X is not affected in a way that is significant enough to warrant further investigation by the Ombudsman.

  • Sheffield City Council (17 016 034)

    Statement Upheld Trees 30-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr D complains at the planned removal and replacement of a tree under the Council's 'Streets Ahead' programme. We find the Council at fault for not giving its independent tree panel all its reasons for wanting to remove this tree and for a misleading reply to an enquiry from Mr D. We consider the faults have caused uncertainty about whether the tree needs removing. The Council has agreed to reconsider its decision as part of a new strategy towards street trees and to apologise to Mr D for misleading him.

  • Sheffield City Council (17 017 004)

    Statement Upheld Trees 30-Jan-2019

    Summary: Ms C complains at the planned removal and replacement of a tree under the Council's 'Streets Ahead' programme. We find the Council at fault for not giving its independent tree panel all its reasons for wanting to remove this tree and for a misleading reply to an enquiry from Ms C. We consider the faults have caused uncertainty about whether the tree needs removing. The Council has agreed to reconsider its decision as part of its new strategy towards street trees and to apologise to Ms C for misleading her.