Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says the Council failed to assess the impact the development would have on a tree in the conservation area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council received a planning application for a development in the area where Mr X lives. The Council considered the application and following consultation with the conservation officer, the plans were amended and part of the proposed development was relocated to another part of the site.
5. After work started to build the development, Mr X contacted the Council to complain about the removal of a mature tree at the site. He said the Council had failed to identify the tree would need to be removed to allow for the development. Permission is needed to carry out work to a tree in a conservation area and the Council accepted the removal of the tree was not properly assessed. It said the case officer should have consulted its tree officers.
6. However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice because of the Council’s fault. The Council’s tree officer has reviewed photographs taken of the tree since it was felled and said they would not have objected to the removal of the tree due to signs of internal disease.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the tree officer was entitled to use their professional judgment in this regard. As the tree officer would not have objected to the removal of the tree, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission for the development would have been the same had the impact on the tree been properly assessed.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman