Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to make a tree preservation order covering trees on his land. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council made its decision and the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complaints about the Council’s decision to make tree preservation order (TPO) covering trees on his land. He says the Council did not follow Government guidance when making the TPO and ignored the information he submitted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered:
• the information provided by Mr X in his complaint;
• his complaint letters to the Council and its responses;
• the documents from the planning committee meeting; and
• the applicable law and guidance.
4. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr X. I considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X owns land, containing several trees, in a conservation area.
6. Mr X wished to undertake works to some of these trees to provide a proper, safe access to the land. He contacted the Council who told him that, because the land was in a conservation area, he would need to formally notify the Council before starting any work on the trees. This is referred to as a Section 211 notice (see below). Mr X provided the required notice to the Council.
7. In response to the Section 211 notice, the council’s tree officer visited the site, assessed the trees and decided to make a TPO covering the woodland on Mr X’s land.
8. Mr X formally objected to the TPO and his objection was considered by the Council’s planning committee which decided to confirm the order.
9. Mr X complained to the Council that it should not have made the TPO and did not follow the Government guidance. Mr X says the Council:
• ignored him and the information he provided;
• did not meet with him to negotiate an agreeable outcome before making the TPO;
• should not have made a ‘woodland’ TPO but should have made individual orders covering individual trees;
• did not provide him with the required notice of the TPO; and
• has taken away his right to manage his land as he sees fit.
10. Mr X says that he does not object to the outcome of the TPO; he objects to how the Council obtained it.
11. Mr X wants the Council to:
• revoke the TPO;
• review its procedures; or
• buy the land from him.

Section 211 notices and tree preservation orders

12. The law says it is an offence to start work on a tree in a conservation area, if the work is the kind restricted by a TPO, without giving the Council six weeks’ notice. (Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 211, as amended)
13. When a Council receives a section 211 notice, is has three options:
• make a Tree Preservation Order;
• decide not to make an Order and inform the person who gave notice; or
• decide not to make an Order and allow the 6-week notice period to end.
14. A tree preservation order prohibits various types of works on individual tress, groups of trees or woodland detailed in the order, without the Council’s permission. (Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 198, as amended)

Analysis

15. When Mr X first contacted the Council about works to the trees, it correctly advised him that he should give a section 211 notice.
16. The Council then considered the amenity value of the trees, conducted a site visit and assessed the trees before deciding to make a TPO. Although Mr X offered to meet the tree officer on site, he was aware the officer might visit the site alone.
17. In considering Mr X’s objection to the TPO, the planning committee, which Mr X attended, considered the points Mr X raised but decided that it was expedient to confirm the TPO.
18. The Council also explained to Mr X the TPO does not prevent him from managing the woodland, including removing dead trees. The Council said it will encourage and support applications to manage trees which will benefit the woodland as a whole.
19. The law says the Council’s consent is not required for cutting down or carrying out work on trees which are dead or dying or have become dangerous.
20. If the Council refuses permission for Mr X to do work on any of the trees subject to the TPO, he could appeal this decision to the Planning Inspectorate.
21. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to make a TPO. However, the Ombudsman cannot intervene simply because the Council makes a decision someone disagrees with.
22. The evidence I have seen shows the Council did consider the information Mr X provided, although it did not agree with his view. The Government guidance on TPOs does not require Councils to seek a landowner’s agreement before making a TPO. So, it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in how the Council made its decision.
23. The TPO itself does not prevent Mr X carrying out work on the trees. He can seek the Council’s permission to do work on the trees and, if the Council refuses, appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. So, the making of the TPO does not represent a significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council made its decision and the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman