APPENDIX A
REGULATORY APPEALS COMMITTEE
Title : TREE
PRESERVATION ORDER AT ‘TIMBER’ UNDERCLIFF DRIVE: THE REPORT OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
The report of the Ombudsman
was studied by the Senior Countryside Officer with assistance from the staff of
the Trees Section. The officer’s conclusions were endorsed by the Head of
Planning Services.
The Ombudsman identified a
number of areas where maladministration had occurred, which are identified
below. He also identified a number of areas identified by the complainant where
maladministration did not occur. These were:
The following points (a) to
(f) were actions identified in the Ombudsman’s summary report. This shows what
action has been taken and will be taken in respect of each item, referring to
the full report when necessary.
a.
ensure
that all TPOs relevant to the site in question were now accurate and
enforceable;
ACTION: See 42 below.
b.
ensure
that all future complaints of damage at the site in question were investigated
promptly and in accordance with the Council’s procedures;
ACTION:
See 43 and 44
below.
c.
identify
a date before which the existing TPOs should be reviewed, and a timescale
within which any necessary revisions would be completed;
ACTION:
An area order
was made on the entire site on 16.04.03. This protects all trees on the site,
and allows a period of six months during which a more thorough review of the
protection required on the site can be undertaken. As the Council’s Tree and
Landscape Officer left at the end of May 2003, this review was not undertaken
immediately. However a new appointment is likely to be made in the near future,
and the new officer will be required to complete the review and make a new, detailed,
order before 16.10.03.
d.
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;
ACTION:
See ( c )
above.
e.
pay
Mr and Mrs Harold £750;
ACTION: Payment has been made to the complainants.
f.
review
its procedures to ensure that, as far as possible, the maladministration
identified would not recur.
ACTION: See 43 and 44 below.
2. Points from Full
Report
Wherever maladministration
was identified, the issue was considered and remedies proposed, or actions
already taken were identified. These are recorded here by the Ombudsman’s
paragraph numbers. Quotes from the full report are in italics.
42. The failure to
maintain an accurate and up-to-date record of TPOs is maladministration.
Since the events described
the Council has implemented a project to classify, identify and digitise the
entire TPO register, and review the condition of the existing TPOs. The results
of this were presented in the Order Status Report to the Economic Development,
Planning, Tourism And Leisure Services Select Committee on Monday, 22 July
2002. The committee resolved to support the report and endorse its proposals.
This reflects a considerable improvement in the accuracy and speed whereby
information about existing TPOs can be located. The review project has so far
identified and recorded all the TPOs, but no actual review of Orders on the
ground has taken place, except in two pilot areas. No resources are presently
available to undertake a review of all TPOs on the Island. The extent of this
task has been outlined in some detail in the Order Status Report. The specific
Orders on the Timber site have in any case been reviewed, as is described
below.
43. There were serious shortcomings
in the Council’s investigation of this matter in November 2000 and this too was
maladministration.
Since the beginning of 2001
a free-standing database by site address of all enquiries and calls has been
kept by the Tree Section. Actions taken are recorded, and all officers working
on any case can access the database.
A protocol for making site
inspection notes has been established. There is a checklist for site visits,
and a template for making a report, including date, time, observations, actions,
etc, and any photographs. Reference will be made to these in the database.
During 2003/4 the TPO Review
Assistant will be refiling all the paper and computer TPO correspondence
records so that all records of previous dealings on the site are available by
site address. This will work in parallel with the database. The result will be
an integration of the various separate and incompatible datasets which existed
at the time of this case.
Site visits will normally be
recorded on the system within one working day.
44. The existing procedure
for investigating breaches has been thoroughly reviewed. This was mostly
adequate, but has been revised. A timescale will now be identified wherever
appropriate, and reference to who takes action if the usual officers are
unavailable. A further possible outcome is to be included, which will be to
make a new TPO. Investigations will also be entered into the new database.
45. That further TPOs
were not properly considered [after the initial complaints] was maladministration.
See 44.
46. The Council failed to
investigate [the complaints] and this was maladministration.
See 44.
47. [Failings in the
inspection of the site] were maladministration.
See 43.
49. [Trees remaining
unprotected] was maladministration.
See 43 and 44.
50. The Woodland Order
was unnecessarily delayed. This was maladministration.
This was identified as the
most serious mistake made in this case. See 44.
51. The Council did not
investigate [further complaints]. This was maladministration.
See 44.
The injustice caused by this maladministration in
connection with which the complainant was awarded £750 was identified by the
Ombudsman as follows:
·
Mr and Mrs Harold have
been caused an understandable sense of outrage that the Council apparently
failed to protect trees at Timber.
·
Mrs and Mrs Harold have
been caused a greater degree of anxiety and uncertainty about the future than
might otherwise have occurred.