Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about difficulties accessing objections to a planning application on the Council’s website, and about the Council’s response to unauthorised works to protected trees. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the premature tree works, and the complainant has not suffered a significant injustice as a result of the problems she encountered with the Council’s website.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms B, says:
• Her objection (and that of another resident), to a planning application appeared as a blank page when she tried to view it on the Council’s planning website;
• The Council has not taken action in response to a developer carrying out works to protected trees on a development site, prior to obtaining the necessary permission. Ms B is concerned that any further ‘short-circuiting’ of planning requirements by this developer could result in significant harm to residents surrounding the development site, and she thinks the Council should remind the developer that its actions were unacceptable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

3. And we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered:
• Ms B’s complaint to the Ombudsman;
• The complaint correspondence between Ms B and the Council;
• Information about the two applications on the Council’s website;
• Ms B’s comments on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

The planning application

5. Ms B objected to a planning application. She says she tried to view her objection on the Council’s website, using two different computer devices, but it appeared as a blank page. She also says the second page of another resident’s objection was blank too.
6. The Council said that when it accessed Ms B’s and the other resident’s letters of objection via the website, they appeared in full with only the signatures redacted.

Assessment

7. I have also accessed both letters via the Council’s website on several occasions, and they appear complete. Ms B says she is still unable to access the letters, despite having a new computer with up-to-date software.
8. I cannot explain why Ms B is unable to view the letters. But I do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate this part of Ms B’s complaint further. This is because the case officer’s report demonstrates that the objections were taken into account during the determination of the application. So, Ms B has not suffered an injustice as a result of the difficulties she experienced in accessing the objection letters, and further investigation by the Ombudsman will not alter the outcome of the planning application.

The tree works application

9. Ms B submitted comments to the Council in relation to an application for works to trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Her comments said:

“This work has already been completed. Please give a full explanation”

10. The Council approved the application a few days later.
11. Ms B complained to the Council, asking for an explanation as to why the Council had taken no action against the developer for completing the works prior to the determination of the application.
12. The Council explained that works undertaken in advance of a formal decision are at the risk of the person carrying out the works. It said if an application is subsequently approved, then enforcement action is not considered to be necessary. If an application is refused, then enforcement action could be considered. And in the case of unauthorised tree works, contraventions of TPO’s can also result in fines.
13. As the application was approved, and the works were undertaken in accordance with the application details, the Council concluded that no further action was necessary.

Assessment

14. I find there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, to warrant the Ombudsman investigating this part of the complaint.
15. The developer was responsible for carrying out the tree works, not the Council, and such actions are taken at the developer’s own risk. It was then for the Council to decide whether it was expedient to take any enforcement action against the developer. The Ombudsman cannot question that decision unless there is evidence of administrative fault in the way it was made. I see no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
16. I also note the Council’s website does highlight that unauthorised work to protected trees can carry heavy penalties, so it has attempted to make people aware of the risks associated with such works.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the premature tree works, and the personal injustice arising from the alleged fault with the Council’s website is not so significant as to warrant our continued involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman