Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s planning application and a TPO on the application site. This is because matters concerning the TPO fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because Mr X had appeal rights to the Planning Inspector against planning conditions with which he was unhappy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains he had to make an application to get a dangerous tree covered by a TPO removed and about conditions attached to the planning permission he received. He says he has been caused stress and anxiety and wants compensation for costs he incurred.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
5. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X, and the Council, including its response to his complaint.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complains about matters concerning a TPO on trees on his development site and that he had to make an application to the Council to have a dangerous tree covered by the TPO removed.
9. The time restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Mr X’s complaint concerning the TPO. This is because his application to carry out works to the trees was made in 2021 and we would reasonably have expected him to have made a complaint to us sooner. Moreover, regardless of the time he became aware of the matter concerning the TPO, there is no evidence to suggest the Council did not properly follow its normal procedures in dealing with it.
10. Mr X complains about conditions attached to the planning permission he received. However, had he wanted to challenge the inclusion or nature of the conditions he could have exercised his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. As he had this alternative remedy available to him which we would reasonably have expected him to have used, this matter falls outside our jurisdiction too.
11. Mr X complains about advice received from the Highways Authority in connection with his application. However, the Authority is a statutory consultee and the Council is obliged to take its comments into account when forming a view on the acceptability of a development

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because matters concerning the TPO fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because Mr X had appeal rights to the Planning Inspector against planning conditions with which he was unhappy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman