Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council followed before imposing a Tree Preservation Order on the highway outside the complainant’s home. We consider that further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council imposed a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on a tree outside his home without clear justification. He says the Council:
• Conducted an unannounced evening visit to his home to serve the TPO.
• Failed to review CCTV evidence he offered.
• Gave conflicting advice about pruning rights.
• Dismissed a professional arborist’s assessment; and
• Failed to explain its responsibilities for managing waste from the protected tree.

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 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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council confirms:
• It decided to make a TPO because it considered the tree work proposed by Mr X’s contractor may cause irreparable damage.
• An officer visited Mr X’s home at 17:45 to hand deliver a copy of the TPO and Notice.
• Following a review of the contemporaneous notes made by the officer, the Council decided to advise Mr X of its unreasonable behaviour policy. It also offered to review Mr X’s CCTV footage if he provided it. Mr X has not provided a copy of the footage to the Council.
• The Council provided an extract from the Arboricultural Association’s guidance on trees and the law, together with a link to the full guidance for the public which highlights potential liabilities for those wishing to prune trees.
• The Council did not seek or make any changes to the pruning work requested by Mr X.
• The original Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) was lost. A replacement was issued. Making a permanent TPO follows a statutory process. The loss of the original TEMPO will be addressed as part of this process.
• General advice was given to Mr X on tree waste. This should be offered back to the tree owner but there is no obligation on the owner to take them back.
• If Mr X gets permission to prune a TPO tree belonging to the Council he should contact the Council to arrange disposal of the waste.
6. In response to my enquiries the Council confirms the decision on whether to make the TPO permanent will be made by a Planning Committee meeting later this month. Mr X has objected and a summary of his objection is included in the published committee report.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the decision on whether to make the TPO permanent will be made by the Planning Committee later this month. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman