Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for permission to do works to a protected tree. This is because Mr and Mrs Q have appealed to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. M Solicitors complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs Q about Cotswold District Council’s handling of their application for permission to do works to a protected tree.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. Where there has been an appeal to the Planning Inspector, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate related matters or to provide an additional remedy.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information M Solicitors provided.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Permission is required from the local planning authority if someone wants to do works to a tree protected by a Tree Protection Order (TPO). If the local planning authority refuses to grant permission, the person may appeal to the Planning Inspector.
8. Cotswold District Council is a local planning authority.

What happened

9. In 2017 Mr and Mrs Q applied to the Council for permission to do works to a tree in their garden. It was protected by a TPO. The Council refused their application.
10. Mrs and Mrs Q complained to the Council about its handling of their application. They also appealed to the Planning Inspector about the Council’s refusal of their application. The Planning Inspector allowed Mr and Mrs Q’s appeal.
11. M Solicitors said the Council did not follow the correct procedures and so Mr and Mrs Q’s application was unfairly prejudiced. They said the Council was unreasonable at all stages of the process and, as a result, Mr and Mrs Q incurred considerable financial costs. M Solicitors would like the Council to reimburse Mr and Mrs Q.
12. M Solicitors complained to us on behalf of Mr and Mrs Q in September 2019.

Assessment

13. Many of the events complained of happened in 2017. We did not receive a complaint until 2019. So much of the complaint is late.
14. Even if this were not the case, however, Mr and Mrs Q appealed to the Planning Inspector, who acts on behalf of a government minister. Their appeal means we cannot investigate their complaint. We have no discretion over this.
15. I understand Mr and Mrs Q incurred considerable costs. But, as I explained in paragraph 5, where there has been an appeal to the Planning Inspector, we have no jurisdiction to investigate related matters or to provide an additional remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs Q’s complaint because they have appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman