Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to authorise the felling of a tree. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation and there is limited injustice caused to the complainant.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council has wrongly authorised the felling of a tree near her home. She says the tree provides amenity and she does not agree that it has caused structural damage to a block of garages owned by her neighbours. She wants the Council to revoke its decision and conduct further tests to ensure the felling of the tree is required.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the planning records on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a planning application from a resident to vary a Tree Preservation Order to remove two trees causing structural damage to his property. The Council’s planning department consulted its Principal Tree and Woodland Officer, who made the decision to remove both trees in the application and authorised the removal of a third.
7. Ms X disagrees with the decision to fell the third tree and does not believe the Council has taken adequate steps to confirm it has caused any structural damage. However, the Council has exercised its professional judgement and has decided removal of the tree is necessary to prevent further damage to the block of garages and to allow the owners to make necessary repairs. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we cannot criticise the Council’s decision unless there is fault in its decision-making process. I have reviewed the steps the Council took during the planning process and am satisfied it has considered the impact on the property, the impact on residents in the immediate vicinity of the trees, and it notified affected residents. I can therefore not see enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. So, we cannot question or criticise the Council’s decision even though Ms X strongly disagrees with it.
8. Ms X says she was not consulted by the Council during the planning process and says this is wrong because her property overlooks the trees. The Council is not required to consult on applications of this type, but it notified residents it considered to be in the immediate vicinity of the trees, and all residents whose garage was affected by the damage. Although Ms X’s property overlooks the trees, her address was not included in this list. The Council says it was not affected by the damage, not considered to be in the immediate vicinity of the trees, and did not benefit from privacy screening. The Council did not therefore need to consult her, and there is therefore not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and any injustice to Ms X caused by the removal of the trees is limited.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence if fault by the Council, and any personal injustice to Ms X is limited.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman