maladministration?

[scarebit72]

Last March I submitted an application to the LA to remove 15 trees covered by a woodland order but which are in the garden of a residential property. The site is adjacent to a woodland also covered by the same order. 10 of the trees have visible honey fungus rhizomorphs and the other 5 are in poor condition (crown dieback, bark peeling off) and in close proximity to trees colonised with HF. The trees are in very close proximity to a residential building (a chalet, unoccupied at present, my client doesn’t want to rent it out until this is resolved), an LV powerline and a private road. Two of the trees shed large branches pre-application damaging my client’s car.

The TO had visited the site in Feb 2014 and identified HF on 1 tree and advised my client to have a survey carried out. The TO visited the site after the application was made and agreed we could fell 8 trees ‘because of their condition’, no mention was made of HF. When I queried this with the case officer, an additional site visit by the TO was requested. His findings after this were that we could fell 6 trees because of their condition and reduce the remaining 9 which he considers to be perfectly healthy 'to reduce the risk of tree or branch failure' and that there were no signs of HF. No reason has been given for the change in number of trees to be felled (I have asked).

This application has dragged on for almost a year, the LA has told us a bat survey must be submitted (which we have declined to do), promised to determine by certain dates and then not done so and twice asked us to revise the application at one point saying ‘we will determine your application if you agree with the tree officer’s findings.’

We appealed to the PINs for non-determination at the beginning of Nov. A determination allowing us to fell the 6 trees turned up mid-Dec in the form of an Article 5 Certificate. When I challenged this, the LA admitted that there was no specific reason for issuing this but have refused to revoke it. Their response was that they issue these automatically on all refused applications which I know is not true as I had another application refused by the same LA in Dec and it was a standard decision notice not an Article 5, additionally the case officer’s report to the panel advises that a A5C should be issued as my client had previously threatened legal damage in the event of any damage incurred due to the delays in this process.

We are now appealing the decision and the A5C. The LA sent me their appeal documents this week including a copy of an internal email from the tree officer to the case officer sent last May before the second survey confirming that there are visible HF rhizomorphs but it is probably not one of the aggressive species. This information has never been disclosed to me or my client and the case officer’s report to the planning committee in Dec does not disclose this either instead giving the TO’s official recommendation that there is no HF on site.

 

Having spent a year scratching my head and wondering if I had imagined the rhizomorphs that I saw I am now somewhat annoyed by this.

 

The good news is that I am not worried about the outcome of the imminent appeal or my ident skills anymore.

 

The bad news is that I am out of pocket on this as I charge my clients a set rate for writing a report and submitting a TPO application – I thought this would be straightforward as the TO had flagged up the presence of HF initially. My client has paid a small amount more (which doesn’t cover the hours spent on emails, phonecalls, additional site visits, wearing out my copy of Mynors, gin – the above is a much shortened version of the farce and I will likely have to attend the PINs site visit) but I do not feel justified in charging him more fees given the circumstances. I also want to see it to the end anyway.

 

I am waiting for the results of the appeal but am inclined to take it to the Ombudsman on the grounds of maladministration. Has anyone else done this? Is it worth it? Or will it just take up much more of my time for little result? Is there anywhere else to go? I feel that this information has been deliberately hidden as throughout the whole application process the LA has seemed to be deliberately procrastinating and very keen for us to revise our application to reflect the TO’s recommendation that only 6 trees be felled and the others be reduced. It also seems as if they have issued the A5C just to cover themselves knowing that the trees are colonised by decay fungi. I have already complained twice during this process to the Head of Planning with no result. It looks like the planning committee making the decision have been misled as to the condition of the trees as well.

Also, would I be justified in invoicing the LA for my time as I feel that if the TO had agreed the presence of HF on site last May this would have been over a long time ago. The appeal is going to run on until at least April.