Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council made and confirmed a new Tree Preservation Order. We cannot investigate Mr X’s other complaints about the Council’s handling of his applications for work to trees under the Tree Preservation Order and its decision. Mr X appealed a decision to the Planning Inspectorate which is the appropriate body to look at the Council’s decisions and the decision-making process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. did not make and implement a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) properly; it issued a draft TPO quickly without consulting with residents first and it provided no specific details about the trees in the draft order;
2. dealt with his applications for works to trees under the TPO over the years with an inconsistent approach and not in line with its policies; and,
3. communicated poorly; it did not acknowledge his objections to the TPO in a timely manner.
2. Mr X said as a result he was caused frustration and confusion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended) The Planning Inspector considers appeals about matters such as a decision to refuse planning permission.
8. I cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint at 1b) above as he appealed the Council’s refusal to the Planning Inspectorate which is the appropriate body to consider such matters. His complaints about the Council’s decision-making process are not separable from the decision itself which carries a right of appeal that was reasonable for him to have used.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
10. I considered evidence provided by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

12. Councils have powers to make Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) to protect individual trees, groups of trees or woodland. The law says councils may make a TPO if they consider it expedient in the interests of amenity to do so.
13. Once a TPO is in place, works affecting the protected trees cannot be carried out by their owners without written consent by the Council’s planning authority. Once a TPO is made, the Council must allow 28 days for affected persons and the public to make representations. TPOs can only be confirmed within six months from the date the order was made. If the deadline is missed, the Council may issue a new order and begin the process again.
14. Before making an TPO a local planning authority officer should visit the site of the tree or trees in question and consider whether or not a TPO is justified. Further site visits may be appropriate following emergency situations where on the initial visit the authority did not fully assess the amenity value of the trees concerned.
15. People must be given the opportunity to object to, or comment on, a new TPO. Before deciding whether to confirm a TPO, the Council’s planning authority must take into account all ‘duly made’ objections and representations that have not been withdrawn.

The Council’s Tree Strategy 2020-2030

16. Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives local planning authorities the power to protect trees on private land with a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) where this is in the ‘interests of amenity”. While the current Regulations do not specifically define amenity, it can be generally considered as a phrase to describe a feature which can be seen by the general public or has some level of quantifiable importance.
17. The Council’s arboriculture officer will assess the trees to determine their suitability for a new designation using a structured assessment method in response to new requests for a TPO.
18. Anyone who intends to carry out work to a tree protected by a TPO must apply for and receive consent before carrying out the work.

What happened

19. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
20. Mr X is the owner of protected trees. The area he lives in is also a conservation area (an area of special architectural or historic interest that is protected by planning controls). In 2023 he appealed to the Planning Inspectorate about the Council’s decision to refuse works to a protected tree.
21. On 15 October 2024 the Planning Inspectorate wrote to Mr X and the Council and said it was unable to consider Mr X’s appeal further as the TPO in place for the tree was invalid.
22. On 16 October 2024 the Council served a draft/provisional TPO. It said that this was put in place due to the risk to the trees following the Planning Inspectorate’s email that there was no valid TPO in place. It also said that it would carry out a full site visit and assessment prior to making any decision about the TPO.
23. In early November 2024 Mr X submitted his objections to the TPO. Mr X said that he was disappointed at the speed at which the new TPO was issued; there was sufficient enforcement in place from the Conservation Area Order to allow time for a short consultation with residents. He also stated that the Council needed to reference individual trees in the TPO and the lack of clarity suggested hedges would be included as well. He also said that the TPO should include what works were permitted to the trees so that residents who own those trees were protected for the future.
24. In January 2025 Mr X complained to the Council. He said it had not acknowledged his letter of objections sent in November 2024.
25. In early February 2025 the Council said it carried out a site visit in relation to the provisional TPO.
26. In February 2025 the Council issued a stage one response to Mr X. In it, the Council explained that in October 2024 it served the TPO on a provisional, six-month basis to replace the historic order which the Planning Inspectorate deemed invalid. The area of trees covered by the new TPO was the same as that previously protected.
27. The Council said it did this as the trees were considered to have significant public amenity and environmental value. It said it had served a notice on all those affected by the provisional designation inviting comments and objections from people affected by the TPO within 28 days. It would then consider the comments and decide whether the TPO should be confirmed. The provisional order was due to lapse in April and that the Council would consider valid representations before it made its decision.
28. The Council confirmed it had received Mr X’s objections and also apologised that it had not acknowledged Mr X’s letter. It said this was due to its previous officer leaving. It reassured Mr X that his comments would be taken into consideration.
29. In March 2025 Mr X complained to us and escalated his complaint with the Council. He said the Council should have consulted with residents before serving the TPO quickly as the landscape had changed since the historic TPO was put in place; there were houses/residents in the area and the Council needed to consider the potential impact of mature trees on these houses. He said there was sufficient enforcement in place with the Conservation Area Order to allow for a short consultation with residents regarding the TPO to determine the best way forward.
30. In early April 2025 the Council carried out another site visit. It completed an assessment and considered objections and comments it had received to the TPO. The Council’s assessment stated that the provisional TPO was made following correspondence that the original TPO was invalid with a view to protect trees from harm and preserve their public amenity value. It also addressed the objections received and said:

• “An Area Tree Preservation Order” was initially implemented while it considered comments from residents. It was normal practice during the application of a TPO to consider a large number of trees as a group to facilitate consultation and then modify the TPO later to clarify details. The confirmed TPO would have a completed schedule of individual trees and their locations detailed. Hedges were not identified in the TPO.
• Any works to a tree protected by TPO required justification due to the potential for damage to the condition of that tree by inappropriate works. Two similar trees would have different conditions and specifications that required individual management plans, and what work would be acceptable to these would vary over time due to the impact from pruning.
• Management of the landscape that featured these valuable trees required specialist knowledge and understanding and members of the public devising their own tree management strategies would not be appropriate.

31. The Council confirmed the TPO with modifications to identify all individual trees and their species numbered on a map.
32. In April 2025 the Council issued a stage two complaint response. In it the Council:

• Explained that it considered applications for works to each tree on their own merits and on a case-by-case basis. Any work to protected trees needed to follow the established application process for the Council to consider if those works were justified and arboriculturally acceptable.
• Stated that the provisional TPO was a temporary measure lasting six months, used when a council needed to protect trees immediately. It said the six months period allowed the Council to consider any objections to the TPO.
• Explained that the provisional TPO was served by a suitably qualified arboriculture officer. Regarding Mr X’s complaint that the TPO was served very quickly, the Council said it had a statutory duty to protect trees, especially those that provide significant amenity when the Planning Inspectorate advised that the original TPO was no longer valid and the trees were not protected. It fulfilled this duty in an appropriate and timely manner.
• Explained that its lack of acknowledgement of Mr X’s objections did not disadvantage him as the Council considered Mr X’s (and other) comments before it confirmed the TPO. It notified all impacted residents of the outcome.
• Stated that following an inspection its arboriculture officer had amended (and confirmed) the order to specifically identify individual trees. While these trees were in the conservation area and therefore had some level of legal protection, the Council considered that their significant visual amenity required a higher level of legal protection.

33. In May 2025 Mr X wrote to the Council. He said it had not complied with its 2015 Tree Strategy policy and associated guidance and had made no reference to these policies in relation to his complaints. He remained of the view that the TPO was rushed and made without consultation with respect to its content, including what works would reasonably be expected to be approved by the Council in the future. He said he could not understand how applying for works to a tree for which he had a duty of care to maintain posed a threat to that tree.
34. In response to our initial enquiries, the Council said that Mr X had referenced the 2015 Tree Strategy which was no longer applicable. It said that the 2015 strategy was a five-year programme which it replaced with Council’s 2020-2030 Tree Strategy in November 2020. It also said that the 2020-2030 strategy was clearly visible on its website, but it acknowledged that the older/2015 documents could also be viewed through a search on its website. It said it was taking steps to remove the older documents from public view.

Analysis

35. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Our role is to look at the processes the Council followed, in line with the relevant law and guidance to make its decision. If there was no evidence of fault in the decision-making process then we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision.
36. The Council issued the new provisional TPO because the previous TPO was invalid and it covered the same area of trees that was previously under a historic TPO. The Council explained to Mr X that it was necessary to serve a provisional TPO to ensure the trees had an appropriate level of protection. It explained that a visit and assessment would take place and any objections would be considered before a final decision was made. It visited the site twice, completed its assessment and considered and responded to Mr X’s objections to the TPO before confirming the provisional TPO. The new TPO included specific details of the protected trees. The Council also told Mr X that any works to the protected trees required its approval, in line with the legislation and its published policy. There was no fault in the way the Council made and implemented the new TPO.
37. The Council accepted that it did not acknowledge Mr X’s letter of objections in a timely manner for which it apologised. This delay in acknowledgment did not cause Mr X a significant injustice because his objections were considered before the TPO was confirmed.

Back to top

Decision

38. I have not found fault causing a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman