Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged the Council granted planning permission for a development contrary to its local plan policies and without considering the cumulative effect of new developments on flooding in the local area.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council granted planning permission for a development contrary to its local plan policies and without considering the cumulative effect of new developments on flooding in the local area.
2. Mrs X says the Council permits buildings without the necessary drainage infrastructure to support development. She says the sewers in the are inadequate and there is increased surface water run-off which leads to increased flood risk. Mrs X says there is cumulative overdevelopment in a flood risk area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I examined the complaint and background information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I examined details of the planning application in question. I sent a draft decision statement to Mrs X and the Council and considered the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council received a planning application which proposed demolition of an existing one storey bungalow and detached garage and its replacement with a three storey building comprising 6 flats, 3 parking spaces, communal amenity space and cycle/refuse/recycle storage.
7. The Council publicised the application and received objections that exceeded the threshold for consideration of applications by its planning committee. The application was therefore referred to the planning committee for a decision.
8. A report on the application was prepared for the planning committee. The report summarised the objections the Council received. It then set out officers’ assessment of the material planning considerations raised in the objections.
9. In terms of overdevelopment, the report noted the site is in a suburban setting in a density range which was in excess of the recommendation set out in the London Plan. However, officers said it would not be appropriate to apply the ranges mechanistically as there was flexibility to support higher density schemes provided the schemes are acceptable in all other regards. The report said the proposal was acceptable because it respected the character and appearance of the surrounding area and did not demonstrate signs of overdevelopment such as poor quality residential units or unreasonable harm to neighbouring amenity.
10. In terms of surface flooding, the report noted the site is located in Flood Zone 1 with a medium/high risk of surface water flooding. The report noted the surface water report provided by the applicant. The report said sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDs) would be used at the site and the recommendations of the surface water report would be conditioned as part of any planning approval.
11. The planning committee approved the application. Three conditions were added to the planning approval which dealt with drainage and surface water run-off.

Finding

12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot question whether a council’s decision on a planning application 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.
13. In this case, I am satisfied the committee report set out the relevant national and local plan policies that applied to the application and considered the application in the context of those policies. The committee report also set out objections to the application and explained the weight placed on the objections which were valid material planning considerations.
14. I recognise Mrs X’s concern is that the development had the potential to worsen flooding problems in the area. But the applicant provided a report which addressed the issue. It was for the Council to weigh the information in the report against its knowledge of flooding problems in the area. Its judgement was that measures could be implemented by the applicant to ameliorate the flood risk. That is not fault.
15. I am satisfied the case officer gave reasoned justification for the judgement he reached. I do not find fault in the process leading to the Council’s decision.

Final decision

16. There was no fault by the Council in the matters raised here by Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman