Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of making a Tree Preservation Order. This is because the complainant has the right to object to the confirmation of the Order and it would be reasonable for him to do so.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr C, complains that the Council has been at fault in the process of making a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council made a TPO on a tree close to Mr C’s property. Mr C used his right to object. He made a detailed submission in support of his objection for the consideration of the planning committee. The committee decided to confirm the TPO.
6. Mr C complained to the Council that his objections had not been circulated to the committee members in full and the Council had not therefore properly considered the matter. He also sent a letter before claim under the pre-action protocol for applications for Judicial Review.
7. In response to this complaint the Council accepted it had been at fault. It apologised to Mr C and undertook to rescind the TPO. The Council’s officer said that it had been decided not to make a new TPO. Mr C complains that, despite this written undertaking, the Council has done so. The Council has confirmed that the committee has decided to make a new TPO and has apologised for its earlier misleading advice. It has set out that Mr C has a further opportunity to object.
8. There are insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate this complaint. The Council accepted that it was at fault in its consideration of the first TPO. This fault was remedied by the decision to revoke it, so matters relating to it do not warrant our involvement.
9. It is not for the Ombudsman to comment on the decision to make the second TPO. That is a matter for the judgement of the planning committee. Whether to use his right to object is a matter for Mr C, but this is the appropriate route by which to challenge the merits of the decision and, where such a route exists, the Ombudsman would normally regard it as reasonable to use it. The only remaining matter is the Council’s erroneous undertaking that there would be no second TPO, for which it has apologised. This is not, in itself, so significant as to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because it would be reasonable for him to use his right to object to the confirmation of the TPO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman