Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council breaching planning control. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr P, says the Council ignored conditions set out in a planning permission for a development of new houses close to his home. He says the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) for the application shows removal of trees within the development site only.
2. Mr P says he has lost protection from pollution and cannot watch wildlife from his garden. He wants someone to be held accountable for what he says is a wanton act of vandalism.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The local planning authority (LPA) gave planning permission for new houses close to Mr P’s home. Access to the development is by a lane which runs behind Mr P’s garden.
7. The Council deals with completing section 278 agreements (s278) under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. This allows developers to enter legal agreements with a council (as the Highway Authority) to make permanent changes or improvements to a public highway, as part of a planning approval.
8. Before completing the s278 agreement, a Council Officer visited the site. They agreed that some trees in the lane need to be removed as the roots were likely to be affected by excavations and would suffer irreparable damage.
9. The planning permission for the development states no one can occupy the new homes until the off-site highway works to the existing public highway and provision of footpaths are complete and available for use.
10. There is no planning condition that forbids removing any trees from the existing lane.
11. The trees were not protected by Tree Preservation Orders, nor were they in a Conservation Area.
12. I have not seen any evidence to show the trees in the lane could not be removed.
13. The Council says the developer should have told residents that it was felling trees as a matter of courtesy, and that it has planted saplings to mitigate the loss of the mature trees.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr P’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman