PAPER B
Committee
: REGULATORY APPEALS COMMITTEE
Title
: TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AT ‘TIMBER’ UNDERCLIFF DRIVE:
THE REPORT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
1.
Following the
report of the Local Government Ombudsman on 19 March 2003 into complaint no
01/B/15370 against the Isle of Wight Council, the Ombudsman found that
injustice had been caused by maladministration on the part of the Council.
Because of this, the Council is bound to consider the report, and tell the
Ombudsman the action which it has taken or proposes to take as a result. This
report identifies those actions.
DETAILS
OF THE APPLICATION/ORDER
· The County of the Isle of Wight (Urban District of Ventnor) Tree Preservation Order, 1954 (1 of 3 Area orders made over large parts of Undercliff)
· TPO / 2001 / 17 (19 individual trees). Made 19.6.01. Not confirmed. Superseded.
· TPO / 2001 / 26 (Area order, made 13.07.01 not confirmed and now expired)
· TPO / 2002 / 7 (Woodland Order on north part of site) Made 11.06.02 Not confirmed. Superseded.
· TPO / 2002 / 23 (30 trees and 1 group) Made 11.09.02, confirmed 12.12.02.
· TPO / 2003 / 6 (Area order) Provisionally made 16.04.03 and for consideration for confirmation at Committee provisionally on 31.7.03.
LOCATION
AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
3.
The site is a domestic dwelling-house and curtilage
situated on Undercliff Drive, St Lawrence. It has extensive gardens on a slope,
and adjoins two other neighbouring properties to the east and west. The
property also includes a part of the inner cliff itself, which is partially
wooded. A plan is attached as Appendix B.
4.
Factual
On 19
March 2003 the Local Government Ombudsman published a report into his
investigation of the matter at Timber. The summary of this report, published on
the Local Government Ombudsman website, is as follows:
‘Mr and
Mrs Harold’ (not their real names) raised concerns with the Council that their
neighbour had damaged trees which they understood to be subject of a tree
preservation order (TPO). The Council
had not recently updated the relevant TPO and this limited its ability to take
action. The Council did not make
adequate records of conditions on site which made it difficult for it to
determine the nature and extent of any damage which may have occurred
subsequently. The Council did not
properly follow its own procedure for assessing the need for further protection
of trees on the site. The Council did
not respond to later complaints of damage and, when additional TPOs were
confirmed, some were not applied promptly, leaving trees unprotected for a
further period.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommends that the Council should:
·
ensure that all TPOs relevant to the site in question
were now accurate and enforceable;
·
ensure that all future complaints of damage at the
site in question were investigated promptly and in accordance with the
Council’s procedures;
·
identify a date before which the existing TPOs
should be reviewed, and a timescale within which any necessary revisions would
be completed;
·
take urgent action to protect the woodland area
excluded in error from one particular TPO, and to protect a particular tree
excluded in error from a second TPO;
·
pay Mr and Mrs Harold £750; and
·
review its procedures to ensure that, as far as
possible, the maladministration identified would not recur.
4A. Response of the Council
The Senior Countryside Officer has considered the report and taken action on all the points summarised above. The complaint refers to a particular period in 2001, and since that time, there have been very significant changes in the way the Council manages all its Tree Preservation Orders and enforcement procedures. In fact, many of the remedies required to address the Ombudsman’s findings were put in place before the report was made. Appendix A includes a full report showing the actions taken and proposed, itemised by the points in the Ombudsman’s report.
5.
Committee History
The Committee has made decisions concerning all the TPOs at Timber from 2001 onwards, as listed in paragraph 2. In particular, the Committee made a site visit to Timber in connection with the confirmation of TPO2001/17 on 23 November 2001.
COUNCIL
POLICY
6.
Council policy is in accordance with the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 and in particular the Town and Country Planning
(Trees) Regulations 1999.
FORMAL
CONSULTATION
7.
Fire
None
required.
None
required.
Officers from the Countryside section have liased with
colleagues in DC Enforcement and Legal Services.
10.
Parish and Town Councils
Ventnor Town Council has received copies of relevant correspondence concerning this site.
11.
Local Member
The
local Member Cllr Mr Bartlett has liased with the Countryside Section and received
copies of relevant correspondence concerning this site.
THIRD
PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
12.
Objectors
Not applicable to this paper.
13.
Supporters
Not
applicable to this paper.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
14.
See body of report.
LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS
15.
The Council is bound to consider the report of the
Ombudsman before a Council Committee. This report comprises that consideration.
IMPLICATIONS
UNDER THE CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998
16.
Not applicable to this paper.
17.
Not applicable to this paper.
Option 1: That the Committee accepts the report of the Ombudsman, and ratifies the response as presented (recommended).
Option
2: That the Committee accepts
the report of the Ombudsman, and ratifies the response with modifications.
Option
3: That the Committee rejects
the report of the Ombudsman.
18.
Not applicable to this paper.
RECOMMENDATIONS |
That the Committee accepts the report of the Ombudsman, and ratifies the response as presented (recommended). 19.
|
APPENDICES
ATTACHED
20.
Appendix A:
Detailed response of the Senior Countryside Officer.
Appendix B: Site plan.
BACKGROUND
PAPERS
21.
Report on an Investigation into Complaint No
01/B/15370 against Isle of Wight Council, 19 March 2003: The Commission for
Local Administration in England. Available from Countryside Section, Seaclose.
Contact
Point : Matthew Chatfield, F 823892
HEAD OF
PLANNING SERVICES