Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control or the proposed work to a protected tree. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. He says a section of hedgerow adjacent to his home was removed. Mr X says this was against the assurances he was given when planning permission for a development at the site was granted. Mr X has also raised concerns about the proposed work to a protected tree.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
5. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
6. In this case, the Council granted outline planning permission for a residential development near Mr X’s home. The permission was subject to conditions. Mr X contacted the Council to complain the developer had removed a section of hedgerow from the site boundary. He said the removal of the hedgerow went against the assurances he was given when outline permission was granted, and it should be reinstated.
7. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and an officer visited the site. However, the Council decided the development had not started and the developer instead intended to submit a new application for the site. The Council said the removal of vegetation was separate to the planning application. Therefore, the Council decided there had not been a breach of planning control.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it did not have any grounds on which to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X has also complained about proposed works to a protected tree at the site. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard as the Council refused the application to carry out work to the tree.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice in relation to his concerns about the proposed work to a protected tree.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman