Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions about planning applications and applications to cut and remove protected trees. This is because part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely that we would find fault with the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained on behalf of Mr Y. Mr X says the Council should have anticipated future issues with trees when approving planning applications for a neighbouring property. He also disagrees with the decision the Council has made regarding a later application to cut and remove trees adjoining the development.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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, 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))
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council agreed to permit the cutting and removal of trees on Mr Y’s property as they posed a risk to neighbouring buildings.
9. Mr X said the Council should have anticipated this when approving planning for the building. However, I consider Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions to approve the planning applications late.
10. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. Planning permission was granted several years ago. It has also been more than a year since a second application for the site was approved. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate this matter now. Mr Y knew about the applications at the time and could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
11. Several years after planning permission had been approved, the Council received an application to cut and remove trees on Mr Y’s property that adjoined the neighbouring development. Mr Y had the opportunity to comment on this application.
12. I am satisfied the Council properly considered this application and has explained why it granted permission to remove the trees.
13. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, I consider it unlikely that we would find fault.
14. While the Council has granted permission to cut and fell the trees, this permission does not override land ownership and permission from the owner is also required. Any disputes about landownership or requests to carry out work on Mr Y’s property will be a civil matter between Mr Y and his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely we will find fault with the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman