Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter at a development near Mr X’s home because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to enforce a planning condition against a developer to install tree protection fencing around trees and hedges along the road near his property. Mr X says works have started but the trees and hedges are unprotected. Mr X says the trees screen the housing development and construction works and provide the outline to his village. Mr X says he has suffered significant frustration in dealing with this matter.

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))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and documents from the Council’s website.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has granted planning permission subject to conditions for the development near Mr X’s property. One of those conditions stated no development was to take place until a tree and hedge protection scheme had been submitted and approved by the Council.
7. The Council approved the developer’s proposed tree and hedge protection scheme following consultation with the Tree Protection Officer who made no comments or objections. The condition was satisfied and works at the development could commence.
8. 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 a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. Mr X’s disagreement with the way in which the planning condition was discharged does not mean the Council has acted with fault in reaching its decision. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the condition had been satisfied. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to warrant us investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council’s decision-making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman