Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly act to protect two trees during the planning process. Mr X stated two large trees close to a building plot have suffered damage to their roots beyond the maximum levels contained in the appropriate British Standard. He would like the Council to monitor the two trees and if the trees fail, or die, to provide compensation for their removal and replacement.

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 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

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. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the decision made by the Council is correct. Unless we find fault with the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
6. A developer made an application to build homes on land adjacent to Mr X’s property which the Council approved in 2024.
7. Mr X complained to the Council about the potential impact of the development on his two trees. In its complaint response, the Council stated that although an initial Aboricultural Impact Assessment did not include the trees on his property, the Planning Committee report included consideration of trees on neighbouring land. It also told Mr X that his trees would be included in a revised Aboricultural Impact Assessment.
8. The Council approved the revised Aboricultural Impact Assessment in 2025. The report considered the impact of the development on two trees within Mr X’s garden. The report concluded that whilst the development would cause an incursion on the root protection area of Mr X’s trees, the root loss would be of smaller roots which was acceptable in terms of tree health and stability.
9. In its complaint response, the Council advised Mr X that matters relating to leaf fall, blocked gutters and tree roots interfering with foundations were civil matters to be resolved between landowners. It also noted these matters would not have warranted a refusal of planning permission for the development.
10. The records show the Council considered the impact of the development on trees on neighbouring land. Additionally, it ensured that Mr X’s trees were included in an updated tree survey which assessed the impact on Mr X’s trees. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr 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