Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his reports of flooding to his property caused by a neighbouring development. Mr X said the Council accepted a developer’s word they complied with planning permission without independent verification. Mr X’s property was damaged, and the situation caused distress and financial strain. There was no fault in the Council’s decision-making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about flooding to his property caused by an adjacent new housing development. Mr X said the developer raised ground levels at the site above what the Council approved, and did not implement the drainage scheme in line with approved plans.
2. Mr X said the Council failed to properly investigate his complaints, and did not revisit the site or re-consider its earlier conclusions when he provided new, independent expert evidence. He said the Council simply accepted the developer’s word they complied with plans without independent verification.
3. Mr X said his property was damaged by persistent flooding. This has affected Mr X’s, and his mother’s, mental wellbeing and caused financial strain. The ongoing risks to Mr X’s property have caused uncertainty and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

9. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
10. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
11. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
12. When granting permission councils may impose planning conditions to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
13. Councils often require evidence to show the condition requirements were met, and when this happens, the developer has to apply to ‘discharge’ the condition. Councils consider the evidence the developer provides and, if satisfied, will issue a discharge of condition notice.

Drainage

14. The impact development might have on land drainage can be a material planning consideration. If land drainage is raised in an objection letter to a planning application, and they are an important planning consideration, we would expect to see evidence to show the Council had taken the issue into account before it made its decision. Without some evidence to show the Council considered the issue, we cannot know whether it has exercised its discretion properly.
15. However, even if we find fault in a failure to consider drainage issues during the planning process, it does not mean we will expect the Council to provide a significant remedy for the consequences. A grant of planning permission does not allow developers to cause damage to neighbouring land. Because of this, we would not expect councils to pay compensation caused by the acts or omissions of private individuals. Remedies for these matters are available in the civil courts and tribunals.

Planning enforcement

16. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. The National Planning Policy Framework says planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach.
17. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use. Government guidance encourages councils to resolve issues through negotiation and dialogue with developers.
18. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all.

What happened

19. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
20. A developer applied for planning permission in 2017 to construct new housing on land behind Mr X’s property.
21. The plans included a flood risk assessment. The developer consulted with the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water as part of the assessment. There was found to be a low risk of surface water flooding.
22. A topographic survey was also included, showing the natural features of the land and ground levels.
23. The Council granted planning permission in February 2019, subject to conditions. I have included details of some conditions relevant to this complaint:
• Condition 4 – Details of hard landscaping shall be submitted and approved before the commencement of the development.
• Condition 5 - Details of all proposed excavations and proposed site and slab levels shall be submitted and approved before the commencement of the development. These details shall show the relationship of the proposed levels to existing surrounding landform and buildings.
• Condition 10 – A detailed surface water drainage design shall be submitted and approved before the commencement of the development. The design must accord with the flood risk assessment and must show a surface water drainage system designed in accordance with relevant standards, SuDS design to provide adequate water quality treatment, and limiting the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events, detailed design of any surface water drainage scheme including outfall arrangements, plans showing flooded areas and flow paths in the event the drainage system is exceeded, acceptable management and maintenance plans for surface water drainage.
24. The developer applied to discharge planning conditions in 2019. This included drainage construction details and plans showing ground levels.
25. Severn Trent Water viewed the drainage plans and had no objections.
26. The Council also consulted the drainage authority. It confirmed the details submitted on hard landscaping (condition 4), levels (condition 5) and drainage (condition 10) were all acceptable.
27. The Council discharged the planning conditions.
28. Mr X complained to the developer about flooding to his property in November 2019.
29. The developer told Mr X in July 2020 that it had been to the site, and its contractor would lay a land drain around the boundary of Mr X’s property. It said it was likely the water table had risen after removing trees in line with planning permission. It also said neighbouring properties on Mr X’s street stepped up, leaving Mr X’s property at the bottom of the hill, but the land drain should be able to deal with the change in the water table.
30. Mr X contacted the Council in August 2020 about the development site. He said uprooting of trees at the boundary created a lack of water retention and subjected his property to flooding. He also thought flooding was made worse by the elevation of the site. He said this prompted privacy concerns and the boundary fence will need adjusting. He said he raised the matter with the developer in November 2019 and was launching a civil case. He asked the Council for documents showing permission to raise ground levels.
31. The Council pointed Mr X to its online planning portal and drawings showing proposed ground levels.
32. Mr X said the application had not taken into account the elevation of existing properties and asked what help the Council could provide.
33. The Council said it would contact the developer to ensure the scheme is being constructed according to plans. It would also ask about the boundary fencing. The Council said a full assessment of site levels was carried out when it discharged planning conditions.
34. The Council contacted the developer before advising Mr X the developer confirmed the development conforms to planning permission. The Council said it saw photographs of the site, Mr X’s wall, and the new boundary fence. It did not have concerns from a planning viewpoint and had not seen anything constituting a breach of planning control.
35. The Council confirmed it visited the site. It understood the developer planned to employ a drainage consultant. It said the plot Mr X mentioned overlooks his property is 30 metres away. The ground levels were agreed when discharging the planning conditions and were not significant. The site visit confirmed this. It was an overgrown site so it may have appeared ground levels increased more than they actually had once development was underway. The Council said its professional opinion was the distances between the approved new houses and neighbouring properties mitigate any level changes. It also said the new boundary treatment is higher than the previous wall and this mitigates the impact on privacy.
36. In September 2020, Mr X asked the Council the date when it agreed new ground levels and when it discharged planning conditions. He said ground levels increased significantly. He believed the Council had been negligent and failed to show a duty of care.
37. The Council said it consulted residents in 2017 and 2018. The houses near Mr X’s home are almost complete, allowing it to assess the potential changes in levels when it visited the site.
38. The Council also said it made it clear how levels and mitigation distances were assessed and it could not add to this. It said the application had significant supporting information about biodiversity and an arboricultural impact assessment. The Council also took advice from the drainage authority.
39. The developer received the opinion of a drainage engineer on 8 September 2020. The engineer completed a topographical survey having visited Mr X’s property and the development site. The survey showed the garden of Mr X’s property falls at the bottom, and that area is lower than adjoining properties. It also showed finished levels on the development site boundary remain the same as pre-development levels.
40. The engineer said there was a large area of paving around Mr X’s property, and no visible drainage for the paved area or single garage, so surface water runs off from these areas to the lowest point of the garden at the rear. They identified a sump in the northern corner which is at the lowest point of the garden which suggested flooding and waterlogging had occurred for some time. The garden also had a brick wall boundary effectively forming a barrier for surface water flow in or out of the garden.
41. The engineer said the developer carried out soakaway infiltration testing as part of redevelopment. This confirmed ground conditions are of low permeability and not suitable for soakaway drainage.
42. The engineer said that during the last incidence of flooding to Mr X’s property, drainage works at the development site were not fully completed and there was no positive drainage outfall.
43. The engineer noted the rear gardens at the development were almost complete and fully landscaped, with a land drain located at 3 metres off the boundary with Mr X’s property as an additional means of preventing surface water run-off. An attenuation tank was being completed as part of the main drainage system along with all guttering and gulley systems being connected to the main drainage system. Apart from soft landscaped garden areas, all other areas are drained to the sewer system, with attenuation providing storage for extreme storm events so no surface water flooding occurs. This was considered a considerable improvement on the pre-development situation when there was no positive drainage system. Also, not all gardens on the development site will fall towards Mr X’s property.
44. The engineer considered any future flooding to Mr X’s property would be because of its lack of positive drainage points. They considered the development’s drainage system would only improve drainage of the site compared to previous conditions, and it was extremely unlikely the development site would give rise to flooding to Mr X’s property. The engineer believed flooding to Mr X’s property was a pre-existing problem.
45. Mr X contacted the developer in June 2024. He said despite measures taken, including installing land drains, the flooding persisted due to the developer raising the water table. He said an expert report he obtained showed a soakaway to his property had been removed or damaged by the developer. He asked the developer to reassess its drainage scheme, restore his soakaway and connect it to the main drainage system.
46. Mr X contacted the Council seeking further support with the ongoing flooding issues in January 2025. He said recent investigations raised serious concerns about post-development ground levels and their impact on drainage. He said the findings showed the development may have significantly altered surface water flow and raised the local water table, contributing to flooding. Mr X requested a site visit to ensure the development complies with approved plans and to verify ground levels. He also said the drainage system on site may not be sufficient to effectively retain surface water. He said he had been unable to confirm whether the developer installed the land drains along the boundary which it said it would. Mr X’s email suggested water flow paths varied due to altered land levels, with one area of the site being raised by 1.158 metres above pre-development levels.
47. The Council asked Mr X to share any reports that his comments referred to or came from. It said it would contact the developer for input. It also said its previous investigations revealed no breaches of planning control.
48. Mr X said he attached all relevant reports and supporting documents to his earlier email. He recognised the Council's investigations did not raise concerns. However, he said his observations suggested that even if ground levels matched approved plans, the overall site design and drainage system may not be enough to mitigate surface water retention.
49. Mr X emailed the Council again in January 2025 requesting a site visit to verify post development ground levels.
50. A planning officer emailed the developer. They said they were contacting the developer to see if they can help over the long-standing flooding issues Mr X reported, or whether there are any planning issues. They said they visited the site and saw some standing water and asked if the developer was helping.
51. The Council told Mr X it was happy to attend a joint site visit with the developer, but this would be in a mediation role.
52. Mr X asked the Council to take a more active role and to directly intervene. He asked the Council to engage an independent expert to assess whether the development complies with approved plans, particularly on drainage.
53. The Council said it would take part in continuing discussions with the developer, but it would not be taking formal action.
54. Mr X complained to the Council about ground levels and drainage designs at the development site in February 2025.
55. The Council’s head of planning responded to Mr X’s complaint in March 2025. They said Mr X brought localised flooding to the Council’s attention in 2020 when he was considering a civil case against the developer and wanted advice. The case officer visited the site and had numerous discussions with the developer to progress things. The Council’s previous discussions with the developer revealed they received professional drainage advice on what was causing the localised flooding and were preparing a response to Mr X. The case officer arranged a site meeting with the developer to discuss an insurance report and Mr X was invited.
56. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response. He said the Council had dismissed the serious public safety and environmental sustainability concerns he raised. He said it was inaccurate to call it a private dispute, as the approved drainage had demonstrably failed, resulting in severe flooding and threat to vulnerable residents. He said questions remained unanswered and there was a need for independent investigation.
57. The planning officer emailed the developer in March, before a site meeting, outlining Mr X’s concerns about inadequate drainage, an inadequate land drain, and flawed site design. They met with the developer on site on 19 March.
58. The Council sent a its final complaint response in April 2025. It said Mr X’s assertion that the drainage system ‘demonstrably failed’ was being investigated by the developer, and the Council’s mediation is ongoing. The Council said Mr X did not attend the site visit with the developer, but it was productive. The developer was receptive to the concerns raised and agreed to investigate. The developer had confirmed the drainage strategy complies with their planning obligations. Any damage or localised flooding would be a private matter between the parties, and the developer is investigating. The developer confirmed Severn Trent Water were in the process of adopting the drainage system.
59. Mr X asked the Council’s complaint team for an update on the continuing drainage and ground level issues. He said there was no evidence the Council inspected or confirmed the remedial works the developer said it carried out.
60. The Council said Mr X had exhausted its complaint procedure.
61. Mr X complained to the Council again in June 2025. His complaint was about the Council’s handling and enforcement of planning permission. He said it concerned the Council’s approval and discharge of condition 10 (which was about surface water drainage), and the failure to safeguard residents from flood risk from the development.
62. Mr X said the approved drainage scheme failed to consider flood risk to neighbouring properties and did not propose mitigation at boundaries to prevent harm.
63. Mr X’s complaint referenced expert reports he obtained, but did not provide the reports in full. He did provide some excerpts from the reports, including photographs. This showed gaps or voids under the fencing at two plots on the new development. It also stated that all neighbouring gardens surrounding Mr X’s property had been built up to a higher ground level.
64. Mr X also complained about the land drain the developer said it installed. Mr X queried whether it existed, and whether its existence or non-existence constituted a planning breach.
65. Amongst other things, Mr X asked the Council to assess whether the developer complied with condition 10 (on surface water drainage), and to conduct a site visit assessing boundary conditions and surface water pathways from the development to his property.
66. Mr X also asked the Council to assess ground levels. He was concerned that even if the levels match approved plans the drainage system may not be sufficient to mitigate surface water retention effectively.
67. The Council’s complaint team said it had not logged Mr X’s enquiry as a complaint. It said it was liaising with its planning team and would update Mr X in due course.
68. Mr X said this was a procedural error by the Council. He asked the Council to treat his correspondence as a complaint. He said he raised potential breaches of planning control, including non-compliance with condition 10, and requires formal consideration by the Council’s planning enforcement team.
69. The Council responded to Mr X in August 2025. It said this was a private matter between Mr X and the developer and the complaint team would close its file.

My investigation

70. Mr X told me he contacted the Council about the developer raising ground levels, about the drainage system not working as approved, and about a land drain the developer claimed to have installed which could not be located. He said the Council did not conduct independent verification before deciding there was no breach of planning control.
71. Mr X told me he obtained two expert reports into the drainage system and a topographic survey. However, as he was preparing litigation against the developer, he did not wish to prejudice his legal position. He therefore did not provide me with copies of these reports.
72. Mr X said he shared an expert report with the Council, which covered the soakaway, and included details from another expert report which covered ground levels in his formal complaint.
73. Mr X said his expert evidence showed:
• The developer raised ground levels by 300mm to 920mm across the site.
• Raising the ground near the perimeter altered pre-development flow paths.
• There is no visible evidence of a land drain.
• The soakaway serving Mr X’s property either failed or was removed or damaged by the developer.
74. However, Mr X said the Council did not:
• Require a survey to check ground levels.
• Require evidence of the existence of the land drain.
• Investigate or test whether the soakaway was functioning as approved.
• Test whether the drainage was built to the approved plans.
• Inspect the voids (gaps under fencing) his expert reports identified at two plots on the development.
• Obtain independent technical advice when faced with conflicting expert reports.
• Revisit its earlier position when he provided new evidence between 2023 and 2025.
75. Mr X also told me the Council breached its complaint policy by not investigating thoroughly and impartially, not considering all the evidence, and denying him the right to escalate his complaint.
76. The Council told me it visited the development site and did not witness any breaches of planning control. This included site levels.
77. The Council said planning permission is the first step in agreeing a fully adopted drainage scheme. Building Regulations and formal adoption from the statutory undertakers (bodies authorised to carry out essential public infrastructure services, such as water supply) is also necessary. Any issues with installation would be picked up at this point and reported to the Council, but this has not happened.
78. The Council said there is no evidence the approved drainage scheme has not been fully implemented, and the developer provided professional evidence indicating there was likely an existing issue with flooding at Mr X’s property.
79. The Council said it took a proportionate approach to investigate the allegations, but the issue of property damage and impact from the development is a private matter. Notwithstanding this, the Council offered support in opening dialogue with the developer.
80. The Council told me the land drain the developer said it installed was an additional measure suggested by the developer due to Mr X’s concerns. It did not form part of the planning permission, and the Council considered it to be a de-minimis addition. There was no requirement to document whether it was implemented, but discussions with the developer appear to confirm it has been installed.
81. The Council said it approved site level modifications with the planning permission, including raising levels at various points within the site. The scheme was substantially completed when the Council visited the site, and soft landscaping would have little material impact on site levels. The Council said it also observed levels during its visit in 2025, and they appeared consistent with the approval.
82. The Council said it considered all presented reports and letters. However, Mr X did not provide one of his expert reports in full. The Council said the development has been substantially completed for several years. It considers the presence of alleged voids is a private matter not covered by planning.
83. The Council discussed the issue of voids with the developer, and water damage. It also raised the issue about the alleged severed or failed soakaway when it met the developer on site. The developer told the Council these issues would all form part of its investigation. There has been no recent contact on this, however. The Council also considers the soakaway to be a historic feature that does not explicitly form part of the planning permission. It is therefore outside of the Council’s remit. The Council considers this would be a private matter, and said the expert report references this as well.
84. The Council decided it was not necessary to seek its own professional evidence. It said this was a proportionate approach in the circumstances.
85. The Council considers it took all reasonable steps to mitigate any harm from drainage issues when determining planning permission. The grant of planning permission has not created the source of the drainage issues, and the Council has not witnessed or been provided with any evidence of breaches of planning control in this respect. The Council said it will continue to assist in discussions between Mr X and the developer and to mediate where necessary.

Analysis

86. The Ombudsman is not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which councils make planning decisions. We look for evidence of fault causing injustice. We cannot question the professional judgment of planning decision makers where this was not affected by fault. Planning enforcement is discretionary, and it is up to councils to decide whether they need to act.
87. In considering an alleged breach of planning control, it is for the Council to consider whether planning rules have been breached. Where it decides a breach has occurred, the Council then must consider whether it would be proportionate to take enforcement action.
88. The Council is not satisfied there is strong enough evidence of any breaches of planning control. This is based on its visits to the development site and Mr X’s property, its discussions with the developer, and its consideration of professional reports provided by the developer and Mr X.
89. The developer’s drainage system was considered by Severn Trent Water and the drainage authority. This included relevant technical details and flood routing plans. Both consultees considered the plans were acceptable, which led to the Council discharging the planning condition on drainage. There was no evidence of fault in this regard.
90. The Council was aware of ground levels at the development. It considered them when discharging planning conditions 5 and 10. Again, these plans were checked by the drainage authority, and it considered them to be acceptable. The Council also considered the ground levels on site in 2020 and 2025. The planning officer responsible for the case did not consider there was a planning breach in this regard. They also considered the separation distance between Mr X’s property and the development would mitigate any increase in ground levels that may have been present. This was a matter of professional judgement, and I cannot question the Council’s decision.
91. The fact Mr X considers the drainage system has failed, or is allowing water to enter his land, does not in itself prove a planning breach. The development has the required planning permission, and the Council does not consider there is enough evidence of a planning breach, or for it to take any enforcement action. That was a decision the Council was entitled to take after visiting the site and considering the available evidence.
92. There appear to be some conflicting views in the expert reports about the functioning of the drainage system, and about the cause of the flooding issues Mr X experiences. Mr X provided me with copies of his expert reports in response to my draft decision. One of the reports did consider groundwater in the site vicinity had risen since the development, but could not say whether this was because of the development. The same report found levels on site appeared to have been raised, and this could be impacting surface water runoff. However, this was not confirmed conclusively. The report also notes the Council appeared to have approved level changes for parts of the development, and that ground levels at adjacent plots appeared to be constructed as approved. Mr X’s reports could not give an opinion on whether the drainage serving his property had been damaged or removed, as this would need a pre-development survey to exist.
93. Mr X wanted the Council to obtain its own independent evidence. The Council did not consider that was proportionate and I do not criticise the Council for that approach. The Council does not consider there are any planning breaches, and the Council is also not responsible for the flooding Mr X is experiencing. I do not criticise the Council for not spending public money on what appears to be a private dispute.
94. Mr X obtained an expert report stating they could not locate the land drain the developer said it installed. The fact the land drain is not a requirement of the approved drainage system means the Council cannot enforce the developer to install it, and its absence is not a planning breach. If the developer did install the land drain, the Council considers it to be a minor addition not needed in order to achieve an acceptable drainage scheme at the site. It therefore does not need separate planning permission. Again, this decision is one of professional judgement which I cannot question.
95. As explained at paragraph 15, there are limits to what action the Ombudsman can require a council to take for issues with land drainage. We do not expect councils to provide a significant remedy for the consequences of poor planning decisions about drainage. A grant of planning permission does not allow developers to cause damage to their neighbour’s land. Because of this, we would not expect councils to pay compensation caused by the acts or omissions of private individuals. Remedies for these matters are available in the civil courts and tribunals. Therefore ultimately, I consider the Council was correct to advise Mr X this was a civil matter he should deal with privately.
96. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaints, and that the Council refused to formally consider his most recent complaint from June 2025. I found the Council provided Mr X with a final complaint response in April 2025 allowing him to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman. In its response, the Council made clear it considers Mr X’s complaint to be a private civil matter. Mr X’s June 2025 complaint raised the same issues. I therefore do not criticise the Council for refusing to provide a further complaint response.

Back to top

Final Decision

97. I found no fault in the Council’s decision-making and completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman