Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to reconsult neighbours after changing the description for work to a protected tree. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. And any injustice is insufficient to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs B, complains the Council changed the description of the work in an application to cut back a tree which overhangs her home.
2. She says this undermined her ability to comment in full on the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs B and information available on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A Tree Preservation Order (TPO), in general, makes it an offence to cut down, top, lop, uproot, or wilfully damage a tree without the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA’s) permission.
7. Someone seeking permission to carry out works to a protected tree must apply formally. The LPA must keep a register of all applications to work on TPO trees. The register must be available to the public at all reasonable hours. There is no requirement on the LPA to publicise the applications more widely. For example, it does not have to write to neighbours or erect a site notice. However, it should consider doing so where the application may affect other people.
8. The Council received an application to prune back two trees with TPOs. It decided to tell those living close to the site of the tree of the proposal. Several people, including Mrs B, objected to the application.
9. Mrs B objected saying the tree was very unbalanced, with most of the canopy overhanging her home and garden. She said the application did not show which branches were to be removed, so there was no way to tell if the work would reduce the intrusion over her property or make it worse.
10. The Council says it visited the site and spoke with the applicant’s agent who would be carrying out the work. He identified lateral branches would be reduced on the east side by 2 to 3 metres. Having clarified the matter on site, the Case Officer wrote up a report on the scheme. He reworded the description of the work to clarify what was to be done. This was essentially a narrower scope of work that as had been previously described.
11. The Case Officer report shows the Council considered the comments received including Mrs B’s objection that it would be “disastrous if more of the canopy were removed from the east side of the canopy so making distortion of the canopy worse”. The Council agreed with the recommendation and approved the application.
12. Mrs B complains the Council should have reconsulted neighbours, advising them of clarified description of the work. However, the Council is not required to consult neighbours on applications for work to TPO trees. In this case it chose to do so. As the clarified description of work was less than suggested by the original wording of the application it decided it was not necessary to send out new letters. This is a decision it is entitled to make.
13. Also, I am satisfied that Mrs B’s representations were clear in that she objected to any reduction of the eastern side of the tree canopy.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the application for work on a tree under a TPO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman