Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council decided to confirm a provisional Tree Protection Order on a tree in the complainant’s garden. It is unlikely he would find fault affected the Council’s decision. Further, the planning system provides a clear path for the complainant to pursue her wish to fell the tree.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms B, has complained about how the Council decided to confirm a provisional Tree Protection Order (TPO) on a tree in her garden. She says in particular that a Council officer lied at the meeting where the Planning Sub-Committee decided to confirm the TPO. She says the Council refused to address this because of corruption and a wish to cause her mental harm. She says as a result her family is prevented from removing the tree.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained;
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Ms B said in her complaint and information she provided. The Council also provided background information and I have seen information about the TPO on its website. Ms B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

6. The Council received an application to fell a tree in Ms B’s garden which is in a conservation area. The Council decided to place a provisional TPO on the tree. This Council had to confirm this within 6 months.
7. The Council’s Planning Sub-Committee considered a report on the application at a meeting attended by Ms B, her partner and a barrister representing her.
8. It is evident the elected Members on the Sub-Committee considered Ms B’s objections to the confirmation of the TPO and she was given an opportunity to raise issues of concern at the meeting. The Sub-Committee decided to confirm the TPO.

Analysis

9. While I understand Ms B disagrees with the Council’s decision, I consider we are unlikely to find it was affected by fault.
10. Ms B has subsequently disputed information provided to the Sub-Committee and says the Council has failed to address her concerns. However, I do not consider this affected the Council’s decision to confirm the TPO.
11. If Ms B has evidence of corruption or other criminal activity, she should present this to the police.
12. It is clear from her complaint to us that Ms B’s wish is to fell the tree and the planning system provides a clear way in which she can pursue this. If she applies to fell the tree and the Council refuses, she will have a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate who will consider all the issues independently.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in paragraphs 9 to 12.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman