Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils’ approval of plans for a development adjacent to Mr X’s property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the council’s approval of a development next to his boundary which he says includes a drainage scheme which will cause significant water drainage onto his property. He also complained about a subsequent decision to discharge a condition on the drainage system which was previously refused.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the council approved a planning application which affects his land due to an inadequate drainage system. He says the plans were approved despite his objections and a complaint outlining his legal and technical concerns.
6. The Council says that the drainage system was considered by its professional officers and that it is satisfied that the provision under the scheme will maintain the current drainage pattern of the site before the development was approved.
7. The Council refused to discharge a condition related to the drainage scheme because the drainage system as built did not comply with the approved plans. Mr X made a further complaint to us about the subsequent discharge of the condition following a new application required under an enforcement case opened by the Council. He says it should not have discharged the condition until his first complaint to the Ombudsman had been decided.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the adequacy of the drainage system approved under the plans. The Council says it has taken legal advice on the matter and is satisfied that the scheme is acceptable as approved. Any dispute about the outfall of the drainage discharge and run-off is a civil matter between Mr X and the applicant.
9. We would not expect a planning authority to delay determination of an outstanding application because the Ombudsman was investigating a related matter. The condition on the drainage system was refused on the initial application and was subject to enforcement and a new application requirement when he complained to us. It was a separate matter and the Council determined it with consultation with a senior drainage and flood risk officer.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils’ approval of plans for a development adjacent to Mr X’s property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman