Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered Mr X’s neighbour’s planning application. It is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to adequately assess the impact of his neighbour’s planning application on his trees.
2. He says his trees could be compromised by the building work and could die or fall on his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to develop their home. This included building a single storey side extension. Mr X objected to the proposed development with concerns about the potential impact of the extension on trees on his boundary. The parish council also raised concerns about the proximity of the extension to the trees.
7. The planning officer checked with the applicant who confirmed the proposed extension will be on an area of existing hardstanding and will be constructed using a raft foundation method.
8. The planning officer was satisfied with the information provided by the applicant and recommended the application for approval.
9. A senior officer agreed with the planning officer and granted conditional planning permission under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
10. Mr X says the Council should have required more information about the construction method according to BS5837 which is the British Standards for managing trees during construction and demolition to ensure their protection.
11. BS5837 requires a tree survey, a tree plan, an impact assessment and a method statement. However, it is not a statutory requirement and for smaller developments the requirements of local planning authorities may differ.
12. In this case the Council is satisfied with the information provided by the applicant and has imposed conditions to protect the trees.
13. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is the Council’s role, as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning policies, comments from statutory consultees, and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
14. I understand Mr X’s view is that the Council has not adequately considered the possible impact of the development on his trees. However the information I have seen shows the Council considered the location of the application site and the proximity to the trees. Therefore we would be unlikely to find that there had been fault if we investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault in the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman