Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X’s request for a Tree Preservation Order. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making process to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council refused his request for a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in 2024. The trees by his property had previously been protected for five years under planning permission granted to neighbouring properties in 2016. Some of these trees have since been removed or reduced in size by the occupants of these neighbouring properties. Mr X says the remaining trees provide amenity and believes their removal would be bad for the climate. He wants the Council to grant the TPO and amend its approach to TPO applications going forward.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In 2024, Mr X requested the Council undertake a new TPO assessment to prevent further removal of trees near his property. A qualified Arboriculture Officer conducted a site visit and completed an assessment. Using a Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Form (TEMPO) and national guidelines to make their assessment, they decided the trees did not meet the requirements for a new TPO. Following Mr X’s complaint, the Council visited the site again to ensure the Arboriculture’s assessment was correct. It was satisfied the assessment had been completed correctly.
6. Although Mr X strongly disagrees with this decision, we cannot challenge the Council’s judgement if there is no evidence of fault in its decision-making. The national guidance says a Council must evaluate the amenity impact of a tree group on an area when considering whether to issue a TPO. In this case, the Council decided that the removal of trees within the tree group would not have a significant negative impact on the local environment or its enjoyment by the public, and therefore a TPO was not justified.
7. The Council recognises that the tree group offers screening between Mr X’s property and the neighbouring properties, but says the matter of residential amenity is not part of its consideration. Similarly, it will not issue a TPO as a climate change response alone. The Council has exercised its judgement in the context of national guidance, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it did so to justify an investigation. We are not an appeal body, so have no power to question the decision the Council has reached.

Back to top

Final Decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making process to warrant it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman