Summary: Mr X complains the Council has felled trees on its boundary with his land. He says this has devalued his property and affected his outlook. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because we have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council felled five healthy mature trees close to the rear boundary of his home. He says this has adversely affected his outlook and devalued his property.
2. Mr X says during the planning process for a new development behind his home, the trees were noted to provide low to mid-level screening for existing properties.
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the planning documents available on the Council’s website.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2015 the Council received a planning application for new homes on land behind Mr X’s home.
6. The Arboricultural Survey Report produced for the developers to support the application refers to trees close to Mr X’s boundary. The summary says these trees were of an average physiological condition and provided low to midlevel screening benefiting existing residential properties.
7. The case officer’s report on the application considered the impact of the proposed development on existing homes, including Mr X’s. It says:

“Layout and scale have already been accepted and which shows development positioned between two areas of existing built development of XX and XX. The proposed dwellings are situated gable end to those developments with the exception of plots 6 and 7 however these properties are set away from the rear boundaries with their main aspect frontwards and rearwards over their own garden ensuring the dwellings would have acceptable privacy levels and not experience any issues of overbearing or overshadowing… it is considered that the residential amenity of the properties would be acceptable and would accord with policy GP8 of the AVDLP and relevant advice in this regard contained in the core planning principles of the NPPF and it is considered this lack of impact should be afforded neutral weight in the overall planning balance”

8. The trees in question do not form part of the planning application. The case officer does not refer to them in her report and they are not part of conditions placed on the planning permission.
9. The Council confirms the trees were its property. They were growing on its land and were not subject to Tree Preservation Orders. Therefore, there was nothing to restrict their removal. There is no requirement for the Council to consult residents about its intention to remove the trees.
10. Following a complaint about possible structural damage to the new properties, the Council inspected the trees. It decided to fell the trees as it agreed they presented a risk of damage to nearby homes. It says it will plant replacement evergreens at the correct time of year.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint because I have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman