Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application near the complainant’s home, particularly with regard to the impact of the development on protected trees. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for new dwellings, particularly in relation to the impact of the development on trees covered by a Tree Protection Order (TPO).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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)
4. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
5. Finally, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• information about the planning application and the TPO, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above would apply to any parts of the complaint about the removal of trees from the site in 2022. I see no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider this earlier event now.
8. And whilst I appreciate Mr X might be unhappy that the Council granted planning permission for the development, 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.
9. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has handled and considered the application to justify investigating this part of the complaint. In reaching this view I am mindful that:
• The Council publicised the planning application in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Order) 2015 (as amended).
• The application was accompanied by a Tree Survey Report and a Tree Protection Plan, and the Council’s Arboricultural Officer was consulted on the proposals.
• The delegated report assesses the impact of the development on neighbouring properties (noting separation distance guidelines are exceeded) and trees.
• The Chairman of the Planning and Regulatory Committee was consulted before the application was approved.
• The Arboricultural Officer visited the site in February 2025, and was satisfied that no trees covered by the TPO have been affected by the development.
10. In addition, whilst I appreciate the new dwellings might be visible through the mature trees to the rear of Mr X’s property, given that the site is over 50m away, I am not persuaded the extent of any injustice is significant enough to justify our continued involvement in the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman