Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed, considered and approved a planning application for a new property behind Ms X’s home. We have already considered this complaint and issued a final decision statement on these matters. Ms X also complains about a lack of enforcement action against the lack of a retaining wall behind her property and the removal of trees on the site. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to her reports of breaches of planning control. And the trees were not protected and therefore could be removed.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about :
• the way the Council processed, considered and approved a planning application for a new property behind her home
• a lack of enforcement action against the lack of a retaining wall behind her property for two years; and the removal of trees despite the presence of a restrictive covenant on the site.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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. I cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council processed, considered and ultimately approved a planning application for a new house behind her home. This is because we previously considered these complaints in a separate case made by her partner in 2023. We will not reconsider issues where we have previously issued a final decision statement.
6. Ms X also complains about a lack of enforcement action against her reports of breaches of planning control. Ms X provided information which includes copies of the notes taken by the Council’s planning enforcement officers. This shows the Council responded to her concerns about breaches of planning control by visiting the site. It also discussed the development with building control officers before deciding there was no breach of planning control.
7. As the Council:
• responded to her reports; and
• visited the site and sought additional information

there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the alleged breaches of planning control to justify an investigation.

8. Ms X is also concerned about the removal of trees from the site which she says is the subject of a restricted covenant. The trees were not protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and are not within a conservation area. Therefore there is nothing in planning law to prevent their removal. I understand Ms X says there is a restrictive covenant in place. However, these are private, civil matters usually between neighbours, and not something the Council can enforce,

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• We will not reconsider complaints about the way the Council processed the planning application and approved it as we have already considered these concerns and issued a final decision on this matter.
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to reports of breaches of planning control to justify an investigation.
• Restrictive covenants are private civil matters and not material planning considerations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman