Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s management of trees near his home. He said the Council had failed to complete the required maintenance work. He also complained about the way the Council responded to his concerns. We have not found fault by the Council in the way it made decisions about work to the trees or with its response to Mr X’s concerns.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, complains about the Council’s management of trees it owns on land near his home. He says:

• The Council failed to reduce the size and width of the trees, in accordance with the direction of its Development Control Board, and its arborist’s recommendations; and
• He and his neighbours are affected by the size of the trees, which completely overshadow their homes and gardens. They are also concerned about the safety issues the trees present, because of a lack of regular maintenance over the years.

2. Mr X wants the Council to carry out further work and reduce the trees by about half their current size, back to the size they were 30 years ago.
3. Mr X also complains about the Council’s response to his concerns and its threat to restrict his communication with it about these issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have spoken to Mr X, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council have provided about the complaint.
8. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on this draft decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and policy

Tree Preservation Orders

9. A tree preservation order (TPO) can be made by a local planning authority in England to protect specific trees or groups of trees in the interests of amenity. An order prohibits certain activities, including cutting down, topping and lopping without the local planning authority’s written consent.
10. Anyone wanting to cut down, top, lop or uproot trees subject to a TPO must first apply to the local planning authority for consent. The local planning authority may invite comments from local residents before making its decision.
11. The law on TPOs is set out in Part V11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012.

The Council’s policy on unreasonably persistent and/or vexatious complainant’s behaviour

12. This policy is published on the Council’s website. It allows the Council to impose a restriction on a customer’s contact if it decides it is necessary to do so to protect its staff from unacceptable behaviour as defined in the policy.

What happened

Background

13. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened.

Mr X’s initial complaint

14. Mr X has had concerns for a number of years about trees owned by the Council on land near his home. He considers the trees have been allowed to grow too large because of a lack of appropriate management by the Council.
15. He raised his concerns with the Council and was not satisfied with its responses. He was also unhappy about a reply in which it said:

“Despite having had a clear answer and despite agreed works being undertaken, you continue to raise the same issue. We consider that you are behaving in a way that is unreasonably persistent and should you continue we will implement our “Policy on Unreasonably Persistent and/or Vexatious Complainants Behaviour” and cease to communicate with you on this matter.”

16. Mr X complained to the Council. In its final response, the Council said:

• It had carried out what it considered to be appropriate work to the trees and had kept this under review; and
• It was within its rights to explain to a complainant that pursuing a complaint it had already dealt with was considered unreasonable.

The proposed work

17. The trees were subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The Council’s Development Control Board asked that the Council be made aware of its concern about the maintenance of the trees and keep their condition under review.
18. The Council’s Park’s Department arranged for an arborist to inspect the trees and make recommendations about maintenance work. The arborist met Mr X on site to discuss his concerns. The arborist provided the Council with his report recommending:

• A schedule of work for the next five years; and
• In the first year, a reduction in size of approximately 2.5m back to the previous height of the trees’ crown, lifting the crown and removing basal growth to 6m, and removing dead wood.

19. The Council sent consultation letters to residents, including Mr X, living close to the trees, setting out the work it proposed to carry out as recommended by the arborist. It says it did not receive any responses.
20. Consent for the proposed work was given by the Development Control Board.

The work carried out

21. The arborist’s team carried out work to the trees. The arborist reviewed the work and considered it had been substantially completed in accordance with his recommendations. The arborist agreed with the Council to remove some further growth and deadwood. As soon as this work was completed the Council carried out an inspection of the trees.

Mr X’s complaint

22. Mr X was unhappy with the work carried out by the arborist and complained to the Council. He said the trees had not been reduced to the size stipulated by the Development Control Board and the arborist had not completed all the recommended work.
23. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said:

• It had taken professional advice and put the recommended maintenance plan in place;
• The recommended work for the first year had been completed; and
• There was no current work outstanding.

24. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and brought the complaint to us.

My findings – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The work carried out to the trees

25. I have reviewed the minutes of the Development Control Board meeting. The Board made no comments about any specific work or the extent of any work to the trees, and I understand the Board had no power to impose any such requirements in any event. The Board’s concern about the maintenance of the trees and their condition being kept under review was passed on to the Council’s Parks department as requested.
26. I consider the evidence I have seen shows the Council took professional advice about appropriate maintenance work to the trees and obtained consent from the Development Control Board for the work recommended by the arborist, in accordance with the statutory requirements for trees subject to TPOs. It arranged for the arborist to carry out the recommended work.
27. The Council discussed the completed work with the arborist and inspected the trees. The arborist was satisfied the appropriate work he recommended had been completed. The Council then decided it was satisfied the appropriate maintenance work for that year had been completed.
28. I understand Mr X may feel the size of the trees has not been sufficiently reduced. But that it is not the issue for me to decide. We cannot question the merits of a Council’s decision if it has properly followed its procedures and considered the relevant information. In my view the Council followed this process correctly before deciding the appropriate maintenance to the trees had been completed. I have not found fault with the Council.

The Council’s reference in its response to its policy on unreasonably persistent and/or vexatious complainant’s behaviour

29. The Council’s policy is published on its website. I do not consider it was fault by the Council to refer to this in its response to Mr X. It explained the reason it might consider implementing the policy, and further explained its position in its complaint response. I understand the Council has not taken any further action at this stage to implement its policy with regard to its communication with Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have now completed my investigation. I have not found fault by the Council in the way it made decisions about the work carried out to the trees or with its response to Mr X’s concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman