Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve an application for work on a protected tree. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for his wife, Mrs X. He says the Council’s decision to allow works to a protected tree on his property was based on inaccurate information. He also says this decision reverses a previous refusal to carry out similar work.

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.

(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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In 2023 Mrs X had two metres removed from a branch on a tree on her property. Her neighbour was not satisfied with this and put in his own application to remove four metres from all overhanging branches.
6. The Council refused the application. It acknowledged the neighbour had the right to prune the tree back to Mrs X’s boundary. However, this can only be carried out if the works do not compromise the health or structural integrity of the tree. In this case the reduction by four metres on one side of the tree would destabilise it and have a negative impact on its visual amenity.
7. The Council placed a Tree Protection Order (TPO) on the tree.
8. In 2024, the neighbour submitted a new application for work on the crown of the tree to reduce the overhang by two metres.
9. Mr X made several objections to the proposal. The Council’s Tree Officer inspected the tree. They wrote a report on the proposal. The report shows the objections were considered and gave the reasons why the Officer considered the proposed works overcame them. The Council agreed with the Tree Officer’s recommendation for approval.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• the relevant officer inspected the tree;
• the Council considered the objections received; and
• explained why it considers the proposal is acceptable.
12. In view of the above there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application for tree work before deciding to grant approval.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman