Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered applications for work on a site in the village where the complainant lives. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considers the applications, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council should not have registered an application for non- material amendments (NMA) to a planning application for a site in the village where he lives. The application included felling trees.
2. He says the Council:
• failed to realise the site is within a conservation area,
• failed to tell the local parish council; and
• breached local and nation planning policies.
3. Mr X wants:
• Preservation Orders placed on remaining trees on the site,
• the permission granted for the NMA application to be withdrawn,
• planning officers held accountable; and
• required replanting of trees equivalent in size and species to those felled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains the Council has allowed tree felling at a site in a conservation area by approving an NMA application. He also says no bat or bird surveys were carried out.
8. The Council says it received the NMA application which showed the tree removal. It also received an application for tree works. The expert assessment showed none of the trees for removal were specimen examples and none were worthy of Tree Preservation Orders (TPO)s.
9. There is no statutory requirement for the Council to publicise NMA applications. The Council says it had not consulted on NMA applications since 2020.
10. The tree works application was included in the weekly list to the parish council. The Council published both the NMA, and the tree works applications on its website.
11. There is no evidence to show the Council failed to recognise there would be tree felling. The tree officer was consulted, and their report considered. There was no requirement to consult the parish council on the NMA and tree work application.
12. Mr X wants the Council to withdraw the permission for the NMA application and order replacement planting of similar sized trees. We cannot order the Council to do this. If Mr X wants TPOs placed on the remaining trees he can make the relevant applications.
13. I understand Mr X is concerned the tree felling has negatively impacted the local wildlife. Although permission for the work was granted, those carrying out the work must comply with their legal obligations under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). If Mr X believes those responsible have not followed those obligations, he can report what are potential criminal acts to the police.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the NMA and tree work applications; and
• we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman