Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take planning enforcement action against the removal of trees at a development next to the complainant’s property. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its planning enforcement decision, and an investigation by the Ombudsman will not change that outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has lied to him for over 2 years about its intention to take planning enforcement action against the removal of trees at a neighbouring development site, only for it to now decide it won’t pursue the matter further.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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, which included their complaint correspondence and the Council’s December 2025 enforcement expediency assessment.
• information about the planning applications for the site, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy about the Council’s decision that it is not expedient to pursue enforcement action against the removal of trees on the site.
5. But 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 whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
6. With regard to enforcement, Councils can take action if they find planning rules have been broken. However, they should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Planning enforcement is discretionary, and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. In other words, it is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control, and if it is expedient to take further action.
7. Here, the Council had served a Breach of Condition Notice in recognition of concerns raised that trees shown as retained on the approved landscaping plan (which is listed in the approved plans condition) had been removed. But it was entitled to rely on later legal advice that, whilst the approved landscaping plan indicated the retention of the trees, there was no specific condition (like the other landscaping condition) requiring their retention and/or replacement into the future. The Council subsequently decided it was not expedient to pursue enforcement action in relation to the technical breach of the approved plans condition.
8. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision, and an investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve a different planning outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its planning enforcement decision, and we could not achieve a different planning enforcement outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman