Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to confirm a tree preservation order and subsequent decisions on a plot of land owned by the complainant. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X says he has been treated unfairly and unprofessionally and believes the Council made some decision on his land with malice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In September 2021, the Council placed a (woodland) Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on a plot of land.
6. Mr X was interested in buying the land. He says he was told by the agent the Council had placed a temporary TPO on the plot for six months. He says he was not told the classification of the TPO, or what it meant.
7. Mr X bought the land in October 2021, he confirms he did not contact the Council until after he purchased the site.
8. After the purchase Mr X applied for pre-application advice as he wanted to build a four-bedroom property with access on the site. The fee for the relevant advice is detailed on the Council’s website. Mr X paid the fee. He met with the planning officer. The Council provided detailed advice and explained why it could not encourage him to make a planning application on the site.
9. I understand Mr X believes the advice was not worth the fee charged by the Council as it should have been obvious the land could not be developed. However, the Council is entitled to charge for the service and the Ombudsman cannot consider the merits of the advice given.
10. Mr X says the Council has made decisions unfair decisions on his land and acted with malice. From the information provided by Mr X and the Council I have seen no evidence to support this claim.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to impose a TPO on the site. Nor on the fees charged for pre-planning application advice. It has apologised for the delay in its repose to Mr X’s application for advice and we do not consider that further investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman