Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission without conditions on highways and drainage, causing access issues and increasing flood risk. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission on a development without properly considering drainage and highway issues. He says homes, including his, are at risk of flooding and road users will face disruption.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr X and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law; planning process

7. A council must consult with various groups about any planning application so that it can take account of relevant views before deciding whether to grant permission.
8. Schedule 4 of the The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 sets out the bodies a council must consult with in certain circumstances. Of relevance in this case, it must consult with the flooding authority on major developments.
9. A council must decide on a planning application in line with its local development plan, unless there are material considerations that suggest otherwise. Material considerations can vary depending on the nature, size and location of the development. They can include the impact on highways, drainage and flood risk. A council must be able to show that it has considered material planning considerations.
10. Planning officers make most decisions but a council may refer others to a planning committee. In those cases a planning officer will prepare a report for the committee. The committee will also have access to all the planning documents. They will consider the report and hear from relevant parties at a hearing before deciding on the application.

What happened

11. In 2017 a developer sought planning permission to convert a building into a home. This is not a “major development” under planning law.
12. The Council consulted with its highways team who said, in summary:
• The access road was generally soil and single width. There was limited visibility for drivers emerging onto the main road but given the likely limited traffic and slow speeds it had no objections on highway safety grounds provided the Council imposed a condition ensuring space on site for parking and manoeuvring.
13. The Council approved the 2017 application with conditions.
14. In 2021 the developer applied for planning permission again, using a design that kept more of the existing building structure.
15. The Council consulted on this planning application.
16. Mr X supported the development but asked the Council to impose conditions. He said:
• The ground was unsuitable for the planned soakaway and the location was unsuitable for the planned septic tank, risking flooding.
• There was a lack of space for parking and deliveries disrupting access.
17. A planning officer prepared a committee report. This referred to relevant law and policy, including the local development plan. It said:
• The proposal improved upon the approved application as there would be less hardstanding, minimising water run off.
• The local water and sewerage provider had not commented.
• The highways team noted the application did not differ significantly from the one in 2017 and its observations remained as before. It raised no objections other than to impose a condition to keep parking and manoeuvring space on site.
• The report included Mr X’s concerns.
18. The officer noted the highways team had no concerns if conditions were imposed. And, while noting Mr X’s concerns on space, the officer felt the inclusion of a garage plus the conditions on parking meant the development was in line with the local plan.
19. The officer noted Mr X’s concerns on flooding but found this was not a major development or high flood risk zone such that it needed an assessment on flood risk. The officer also noted they had not received comments from the local water provider however felt the full details of foul and surface water drainage would be considered under Building Regulations.
20. The officer recommended the Council approve the application subject to conditions.
21. The Council’s planning committee considered the application.
22. The Council’s website says minutes will be published on the website, however these are not available.
23. The decision notice shows the planning committee decided to approve the application with conditions as recommended.
24. Mr X complained the Council had not paid sufficient care and attention in deciding the application. He felt the Council should have drawn the committee’s attention to the importance of his concerns.
25. The Council outlined how Mr X’s concerns were considered within the officer’s report and said the officer referred to these when presenting to the committee. Further it told the Building Control team his concerns for consideration when deciding on Building Regulations approval.
26. Mr X escalated his complaint because:
• The Council had not considered the increased traffic during construction.
• Flooding remained a risk no matter the size of the development.
• The Council’s Building Control team may have no input.
27. The Council said in reply:
• It was not proportionate to include a condition to control traffic during construction given the lack of objection by the highways team and as this was a small development.
• The planning committee considered his concerns.
• It had other powers to control disruption.
• Details of drainage fell under building regulations whether privately inspected or Council inspected.
28. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman. He noted the access road was now tarmacked which increased its use, the speed of traffic and reduced drainage, yet the highways team did not consider this and the Council had not carried out a further site visit which would have identified this.
29. He was unaware the Council had relied on this inaccurate information until he complained. At that stage the Council sent him a copy of the highways team’s consultation response and he noticed it had relied on its 2017 decision, reached before the road was tarmacked.

Findings

30. The Council must decide on a planning application in line with its local plan and taking account of material considerations. It is not within my remit to say the Council’s decisions are right or wrong. Rather my remit is to investigate whether the Council followed a proper decision making process; taking into account all relevant information that was available to it at the time, and applicable law and policy.
31. Councils do not have to carry out site visits upon a planning application. And there is nothing to suggest the Council’s highways team knew or should have known that the access road surfacing had changed since the last application. I therefore cannot say the Council failed to consider relevant information available to it at the time it decided.
32. The planning officer report evidences the Council considered relevant law and policy and took account of the information available, including Mr X’s objections. The officer gave clear reasons as to why they found the application acceptable despite his concerns. The planning committee would have considered the officer’s report and any matters raised during the hearing. They had chance to consider any further information they felt relevant. The planning committee decided to approve the application. On the information provided I am satisfied the Council took account of available and relevant information, law and policy before deciding the application. It also gave clear reasons for its decisions. I therefore find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.
33. The Council addressed Mr X’s concerns about traffic in the officer’s report. It then addressed his concerns about traffic during the construction phase in its complaints response. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s views, however this does not mean I can find fault.
34. Similarly the Council addressed Mr X’s concerns about drainage as set out in the officer’s report. And it further addressed his concerns about flood risk during the complaints process. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, however it has shown proper consideration of the matters raised and so I cannot find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. This is because I find no fault in how the Council decided on a planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman