The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not consult the complainant before allowing trees in a conservation area to be pollarded. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council did not consult residents before permitting work to trees in a conservation area. She says there was no good reason for the work and the trees may have been damaged in the process.
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, the application to do tree work, and the legislation and guidance. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
People may need to apply to do tree work in a conservation area. Planning guidance says the Council does not need to consult but may do so if the work raises issues of public interest.
A tree surgeon, employed by some residents, applied for permission to re-pollard some trees. The tree surgeon said there were areas of re-growth which were creating areas of concern. The trees are owned by the Council’s highway service and it had previously done the same work to the trees. The Council consulted the Town Council which had no objections. The Council granted consent for the work after the application was assessed by a tree officer.
A highways officer told two residents who live near the trees about the application. In the complaint correspondence there was some confusion about how many residents the highways officer had spoken to.
Ms X says she should have been consulted as a resident. She says the work was unnecessary and was so severe it may have damaged the trees.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council received an application and approved it after it was assessed by a tree officer. The Council was not required to consult but sought a view from the Town Council and a highways officer notified some residents who live near the trees; he was unable to make contact with all the residents who live near the affected trees. Ms X describes the initial confusion about the number of residents the officer spoke to as lying but, while I recognise she feels aggrieved, some confusion in the complaint correspondence does not need an investigation.
Ms X may think the work was unnecessary but it is not fault for the Council to follow the professional opinion of a tree officer. In addition, it would be for the highways authority, as the owner of the trees, to act if it thinks the trees have been damaged. It would be for the highways authority to decide if any remedial work is needed or necessary.
Final decision
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman