Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve two planning applications for a site close to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of the planning applications to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve planning applications for development near his home. He says this is a direct cause of flooding to the estate where he lives.
2. Mr X wants the Council to:
• pay compensation to all those living on the estate for a drop in property value
• install relief tanks underground to hold excess water from the new development
• dredge a nearby brook and ensure flowing water is not restricted
• apologise for passing the planning applications; and
• not approve any other planning applications which are sited near flood zone three.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council confirms the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) did not object to the original planning application. The planning officer’s report provides a detailed assessment of the plans. It includes details of the relevant local and national planning policy. It also summarises the objections received and explains why the planning officer considers the application is acceptable. The Council approved the application.
7. The developer submitted a new application to make amendments to the original application. The Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) objected to the new application.
8. The Council sought legal advice. After considering the application and seeking legal advice, it decided to approve it because:
• the LLFA had withdrawn its objection
• the Environment Agency did not object
• the original application was still extant and could be implemented; and
• the site was named in the Local Plan as suitable for housing.
9. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
10. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons. General planning policies may pull in different directions for example in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning applications and granted approval.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman