Summary: We have not investigated Mr B’s complaint that the Council did not properly consider whether a development would increase the risk of flooding to his property, or whether the ground levels had been materially raised contrary to planning permission granted in 2015. This is because he did not bring the matter to the Ombudsman in time. We will not investigate the issues because the complaint is late and there is no reason why Mr B could not have complained sooner.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with planning matters at a development next to his home. In particular, Mr B says the Council;
• Failed to properly consider the flood risk increased by the development approved in 2017, and that it is within 20 metres of a watercourse, when the application says it was not; and
• Failed to take action when the ground levels of the development are not in accordance with the approved plans.
2. Mr B says that as a result of the Council’s failures, his garden floods much more frequently.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mr B and discussed the issues with him. I considered the information provided by the Council including evidence from its planning and enforcement files. Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. Mr B has commented on the draft statement and I have taken his comments into account before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mr B lives at the edge of a rural village. His only residential neighbour built a replacement dwelling on the plot next to his home. The Council granted planning permission for the dwelling in 2005.
8. A river runs to the east of the site with a watercourse running alongside one boundary. The Council says the site lies mainly within flood zone one, which has the lowest likelihood of flooding, with the rear of the site partly within flood zone two and three. Mr B says that at the time of the 2005 planning permission, the site was in flood zone three, although the Environment Agency did not object to the application.
9. In 2010, the neighbour applied for a further planning permission. The Council refused this because the flood risk assessment was not sufficient.
10. In 2014, the Council granted permission for an amended design of the replacement dwelling and in 2015, for the neighbour to build a swimming pool.
11. In 2016, Mr B complained the neighbour had raised the ground levels and filled in the flood plain. The Council investigated Mr B’s concerns. It visited the site and in early 2017 concluded there was no material change to the ground levels and so o breach of planning control.
12. In 2017, the neighbour applied for planning permission to relocate the pool within the plot. Mr B objected to the relocation of the pool on the basis that this was within 20 metres of a watercourse despite the application saying it is not, and would impact on flooding to his home. The Council granted planning permission.
13. Mr B complained to the Council that the neighbour had not built what he applied for. The plans said the floor levels would be raised but he says the neighbour has also raised the ground levels and this will increase the risk of flooding.
14. The Council investigated Mr B’s concerns again in 2019. It concluded that the ground levels had not been changed since it had last visited to investigate Mr B’s concerns, in 2016.
15. Mr B continued to pursue matters with the Council and in October 2020, he complained to the Ombudsman.
16. In response to my investigation, the Council has referred to current flood risk mapping by the Environment Agency. This suggests that the Mr B’s property is at no greater risk of flooding since the development.

My analysis

17. The Council granted planning permissions in 2015 and 2017 for development on the site next to Mr B’s home. The Council decided in January 2017 that the ground levels had not been significantly increased. I appreciate that Mr B has been pursuing matters with the Council since then, including a visit to his property by the Council’s Chief Executive in 2019, but there is no reason why he did not bring this to the Ombudsman sooner.
18. Mr B has not complained to the Council that the ground levels have been further raised ie, after the planning permission granted in 2017. Instead, his complaints centre on that he does not agree the Council has properly considered the planning applications themselves. The more recent correspondence between Mr B and the Council, and his dealings with the Chief Executive, are about matters the Council decided more than 12 months before Mr B brought the complaint to the Ombudsman, and so I have not investigated this.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate this complaint because it is late and there is no good reason why Mr B did not complain to the Ombudsman sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman