The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the validity and impact of a tree report relating to a planning application made on a plot of land adjacent to his house. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains there was no evidence the arboricultural impact assessment (AIA) carried out as part of the planning application was completed by a proper person, the council officers were therefore misinformed and it does not conform to BS5837.
Mr X further complains the construction of two new dwellings on the plot will potentially damage existing trees which are subject to tree protection orders (TPOs). He would like the planning permission, which has been granted, to be withdrawn.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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. We do not start or may decide not to continue with 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council there was no evidence the AIA had been completed by a suitably qualified person, was therefore misleading and not BS5837 compliant.
The Council has since responded to Mr X and provided comprehensive details of the relevant qualifications and experience of the two people involved in writing the report and AIA. The Council has also confirmed its Senior Arboriculture and Habitat Officer reviewed the report in question, visited the site and advised the Council throughout the process.
A tree consultancy report Mr X provided says trees have been incorrectly categorised and various aspects of construction are likely to cause damage to the trees or tree root protection areas of trees subject to TPOs.
The Council has responded to confirm it is satisfied with the categorisation of the trees concerned and proposals to construct the dwellings without unduly damaging the trees and the report is not misrepresentative. A difference of professional opinion is not evidence of fault.
Evidence shows the trees in question were discussed in committee meetings prior to approval being granted.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. The Council have considered all relevant planning matters when granting permission and we are unlikely to find fault by investigating further.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman