Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to re-evaluate the flow rates for the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme at a new housing development increasing flooding in the village where he lives. We have discontinued the investigation. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to re-evaluate the flow rates for the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SuDS) at a development of new homes in the village where he lives. He says this has increased flooding in the village.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. A planning inspector granted planning permission in 2019 for a site of new homes in the village where Mr X lives. In 2021, the Council approved an application to discharge a condition requiring the developer to submit a SuDS scheme to the Council for approval.
7. The scheme was subject to discussion between the developer and the Council as Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) and Highway Authority, as well as the Local Planning Authority. The Council approved the scheme. It says the scheme was designed in accordance with national guidance at the time including the National Planning Policy Framework and non-statutory technical standards for SuDs.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about the planning application including raising slab levels at the site and the effect it may have on flooding in 2021.The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaints.
9. The Council confirmed permission was not granted to raise the site levels. It says there were localised circumstances where levels had to be raised to enable a drainage connection. The Council says this was not a material change to the approved site levels and did not invalidate the hydraulic design of the SuDs system. It says the LLFA was satisfied the scheme remained compliant with its design criteria and did not warrant recalculation of the flow rates. So, the Council was satisfied the flow of water to ensure the drainage scheme was adequate.
10. In 2024 Mr X complained to the Council about a recent flooding event in the village. Mr X believed it had been caused by the Council allowing the housing development and impacting on the local area. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s view the SuDs scheme was adequate and considered it should have reviewed extra information provided by residents in 2021.
11. Mr X also reported a representative of the local water company advised him the calculations for the flow rates on the SuDS should have been recalculated as the developer had raised the site levels.
12. The Council responded it had considered Mr X’s concerns in 2021, and it had considered the proposed SuDs scheme to be acceptable. The Council noted there had been extensive rainfall in the previous three months with the ground becoming saturated. This, along with heavy rainfall in one day caused many places to be flooded both locally and nationally.
13. The Council also referred to a flood report for the village it commissioned under section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act. The report was issued in 2023. The independent consultants who prepared the report for the Council engaged with residents, Councillors, and Risk Management Authority partners. The report concluded:

“The reviewer is satisfied that the flood risk and drainage strategy for the site was prepared in line with flood risk planning legislation and guidance at the time of the application…”

14. The Council also confirmed it had not received any formal objection or technical evidence from the local water company stating it did not believe the SuDS provided sufficient mitigation from flooding. The Council considered the SuDs installation was correct and sufficient.
15. The Council says it applies a consistent and robust approach to all new planning applications with flood risk and climate resilience as part of decision making. This includes requirements such as a site-specific flood risk assessment and drainage strategies and reviewing groundwater monitoring data and downstream capacity.
16. Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s response to his concerns. Mr X considers the Council should have reviewed the specification of the SuDs scheme after it agreed to raise some site levels in 2021. Mr X says the Council had a regulatory duty and a duty of care to do so. Mr X says this might have resulted in improvements for containing water from the site to avoid increased flooding in the village. Mr X wants the Council to insist the housing developer reduces the flow rate of the SuDs and/or increases the capacity of the surface water drainage in the village.
17. The Council comments that the Mr X’s desired outcomes such as the retrospective redesign or flow rate reduction are not achievable within the statutory framework governing SuDs approval and planning enforcement.

My assessment

18. Mr X refers to events from 2019 onwards. The documents provided show the Council has already investigated Mr X’s concerns about the housing development and the SuDs system. Therefore, it was open to Mr X to have brought his concerns to us about the way the Council granted planning permission and responded to his complaint in 2021 before now. I do not consider there are good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider the matter now.
19. I have considered the outcome Mr X is seeking in making his recent complaint to us. However, it is not our role to say whether the SuDs scheme for the housing development is adequate or not. This is a decision for the LLFA and the Council as the Local Planning Authority. Mr X says if the Council had carried out a review of the SuDs scheme in 2021 it may have resulted in improvements for containing water from the site. But we cannot say for certain whether there was a need for a review of the SuDs scheme then or whether there would have been any changes even if a review had taken place. We also cannot say whether the housing development has contributed to more recent flooding in the village.
20. In addition, we would not make recommendations for the Council to take the action Mr X has requested, even if we found evidence of fault. This is because the suitability or adequacy of the SuDs scheme is for the Council to decide and whether there needs to be an increase in the capacity of surface water drainage in the village. In addition, the Council says such action is not possible under the SuDs framework and planning enforcement. So, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking. In view of this I am ending my investigation into Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Decision

21. I have discontinued the investigation. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman