Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve an application for work on protected trees. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council approved a tree works application for the severe pollarding of trees near her property without considering the impact on the amenity. Ms X stated that this had impacted her privacy, enjoyment of her home and overall well-being. Ms X would like an apology, for the Council to review its decision-making process and for the Council to improve its complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received an application to pollard trees located behind Ms X’s property. The trees were subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). The Council granted permission for the proposed tree works in October 2024.
6. Ms X complained to the Council in March 2025 that the tree works were severe and had removed all foliage from the trees. Ms X stated that this had a negative impact on the amenity value of the trees.
7. The Council stated in its complaint response that because the trees had been managed through pollarding since 2005 and this practice had to continue due to safety reasons. The Council acknowledged the pollarding caused a stark visual change, however it explained tree growth after pollarding was weak, and unless the trees were pollarded regularly, the regrowth could collapse. This was why it had approved the re-pollarding application.
8. The Council stated that the trees were protected by TPOs due to their visual amenity in the streetscape, not to provide privacy for neighbouring properties.
9. 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. The Council stated they granted approval for the trees to be re-pollarded mainly for safety reasons. A Council arboriculturist assessed the tree works application, the Council’s complaint response sets out their reasons for approving the pollarding method and safety risks. There is not enough evidence of fault in the steps the Council took to consider and approve the application to justify our involvement.
11. We will not investigate because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the tree works application.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman