Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his application for works to a protected tree. This is because it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to determine his application for works to a protected tree within eight weeks. He says this caused him financial loss, inconvenience and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X applied for permission from the Council to carry out work to several protected trees in 2020. He complains the Council failed to determine the application within the statutory eight week period and says this held up his building work and caused him financial loss and inconvenience.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council accepted the application was taking longer to deal with than the statutory eight week period; ultimately it took the nine weeks for the Council to grant consent. The Council explained Mr X could appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination (delay) but Mr X did not do this. He believes the Council should pay him compensation.
8. If Mr X was concerned about the Council’s delay in determining his application it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. Mr X says he did not appeal as it would have taken too long and was not commercially viable. But this is the process provided by law and it is the same for everyone. Had the Government wished to include provision for consequential losses it could have done so as part of the legislation. As it did not, it is not for us to provide a means for Mr X to claim compensation for the losses he says result from the Council’s delay.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman