Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly notify him about his neighbour’s proposed work to trees in his garden on the property boundary. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council approving two notices submitted by his neighbour to carry out work to trees in his garden which are on the neighbour’s boundary. He says the Council did not notify him about the proposals and that despite the trees being in a conservation area it has failed to protect them, and the pruning work has resulted in damage to them and loss of amenity.

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’. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says his neighbour applied to the Council under section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove a tree from the boundary. The tree is in Mr X’s garden and he says he should have been notified also by the Council. The Council says that Mr X was aware of the notice because one if its officers had already contacted him about it. Mr X disputes the Council’s version of events.
5. Mr X says he was denied an opportunity to object to the proposals because he received no formal notice. A notice under section 211 is not a planning application and there are no rights to object to it. The planning authority must decide either to place a preservation order on the tree in question or to accept the notice. In this case the Council’s tree officer did not consider the trees merited preservation and so the notice was accepted.
6. Mr X refused to allow his neighbour access to cut down the tree which is on his land and so the works in the notice could not be carried out. The neighbour then submitted another notice to carry out pruning work to the trees. The Council accepted the notice, and the work was carried out on the neighbour’s side. Mr X says this has affected the health of the trees.
7. The Council had a duty to act on the neighbour’s notices and it did so within the required 6-week notice period. Regardless of the ownership of the trees, it was required to either enact a preservation order or accept the notices. It chose to do the latter on advice from its professional officers. There is no evidence of fault in the procedure which it followed. Mr X as owner of the trees refused to allow the works on his land which he was entitled to do and so there was no injustice arising from the notice procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman