Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it reached its decisions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s applications for development which he believes may affect his property. He believes the Council has failed to properly consider the possibility of flooding to his property as a result of the development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council granted planning permission for Mr X’s neighbour’s development and discharged a condition relating to water runoff from the property in 2023.
5. As part of the Council’s consideration of the planning application and the application to discharge the condition, the Council consulted with the local County Council, acting as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for their views.
6. We have considered Mr X’s complaint against the lead local flood authority but did not find enough evidence of fault to investigate their actions further. This complaint deals with the actions of the Council as the local planning authority.
7. The Council does not have any internal experts to advise on flood risk, so it relies on the responses provided by consultees such as the LLFA and the Environment Agency.
8. The Environment Agency clearly had some concerns about the development but made no objection to it. It recommended the Council consider the risk of flooding from water runoff and the Council included a condition within its grant of planning permission to address this prior to work starting on the development.
9. When the neighbour applied to discharge the condition the Council sought the LLFA’s views on the application and the information they had provided. The LLFA had no concerns so the Council discharged the condition.
10. Mr X believes the Council did not properly consider the issue properly as part of the planning application or the application to discharge the condition. He believes the Council should have sought an independent expert’s view on the proposal.
11. But there was no requirement for the Council to commission an independent expert to advise on the proposal; it was entitled to rely on the LLFA’s response and we could not find fault in its decision to do so. We cannot therefore say the Council must review its processes or force his neighbour to do more to deal with water runoff from the site.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman