Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his application to reduce the heights of two trees in his rear garden. There is no injustice to Mr X. Mr X had and still has a formal route to achieve the outcome he seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a conservation area. He complains the Council:
1. has not allowed him to reduce the crowns of two trees in his back garden;
2. failed to properly reply to his correspondence on the matter.
2. Mr X says it was his neighbour who complained about his trees. He now cannot take action to resolve his neighbour’s concerns about the impact of the trees on their garden, which has caused tension. The trees are also affecting Mr X’s own garden, which he says he now cannot resolve.
3. Mr X wants the Council to revisit the site, take account of his and his neighbour’s concerns, and reconsider their decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• considered online documents from the Council’s planning website;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X submitted his application to reduce the crowns of two beech trees in February 2019. The Council confirmed receipt of his application, advising it would have six weeks to consider the application. It also advised that if they considered the proposed work was unacceptable, they could not refuse Mr X’s application, but could decide to put a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on the trees to protect them.
7. The tree officer visited Mr X’s address then produced a report in March 2019. They decided the works were unacceptable because they may cause damage to the health of the trees, and would harm their visual amenity.
8. Mr X disagreed and sought to discuss the report with the tree officer. He complained when the officer did not reply straight away to his correspondence. The Council rejected Mr X’s complaint. Mr X withdrew his application to do work on the trees and complained to the Ombudsman.
9. Where a council receives an application to do work on trees in a conservation area, it cannot refuse the permission. But if it considers the work is unacceptable, it can protect the trees from the proposed work by placing TPOs on them. The process is in place to give councils opportunity to have suitable control over conservation area tree works. This allows councils to protect trees where they consider it is in the interests of the wider community to do so.
10. If Mr X considered the officer’s decision was wrong, he could have proceeded with his application instead of withdrawing it. This would have resulted in the Council reconsidering the matter. It would have then been for officers to decide whether to issue the TPOs. If they did not, Mr X would have been able to do the works set out in his application. If the officers decided to issue TPOs, Mr X would have had a right of appeal against that decision.
11. I do not consider the Ombudsman has grounds to investigate. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X. I say this because he has a way forward to resolve the matter by submitting a further application to the Council for the tree works he wants to do. It was Mr X’s choice to withdraw his application which ended the decision‑making process, not any Council action.
12. The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s replies to his correspondence. The Council replied within appropriate timescales. There was no injustice caused to Mr X by officers responding later than he wanted. The way for Mr X to test the Council’s position on his application was to continue with it, inviting the Council to reconsider its position, not by discussing it with officers.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is no injustice to Mr X. He still has the option to get the outcome he seeks through the normal application process, and through a right of appeal if the Council decides to serve TPOs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman