The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of planning matters concerning a development near her home. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council failed to incorporate measures for the flood protection of her property and, as part of the development, has allowed vast amounts of soil to be dumped on land behind her property. She says the Council is wrong when it says the filter drain which has been installed on the land is in “good condition” and she wants it repaired and the removal of the soil so her property is not affected by surface run off in heavy rain.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 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) We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.
My assessment
The Council granted planning permission for a development near Ms X’s home. The Local Lead Flood Authority raised no objections to the application, subject to various conditions including those relating to drainage and discharge of surface water.
Concerned about a flood risk to her home from the development, Ms X contacted the Council. A senior drainage officer visited the site and saw that as part of the construction works a filter drain had been installed to help deal with surface water runoff from the wider development site and satisfied himself with its condition and functionality.
The Council told Ms X that further drainage construction within the development was required which the drainage officer would be inspecting. It said the officer would be carrying out site visits until the construction was complete and post development to ensure all features operate properly and without the risk of increasing flooding to others.
Ms X also contacted the Council with her concerns about soil removed from the development site and stored in mounds on land behind her property. The Council noted the heaps had grown since the last officer visit and confirmed these would be investigated.
At the beginning of May 2022, the drainage officer, having first visited Ms X at her home, carried out a further site visit. He reported that he continued to be satisfied with the built drainage and that he had no further comments from a flood risk/drainage perspective. He did, however, note that the soil mounds would require consideration from the Planning Team.
An officer from Planning Enforcement visited the soil mounds and then contacted Ms X to explain that the mounds did not require planning permission as they fell within “permitted development rights” provided the site is restored once the development is completed.
I understand Ms X’s concerns about the impact of the development on her property but I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council. The planning permission granted for the development was made subject to certain drainage/surface water conditions and the Council continues to monitor the work and has confirmed it will do so post completion. It is not our role to question decisions taken by officers using their professional judgement.
In responding to my draft decision, Ms X says a visit to the site will show the situation she is facing and that officers have not used their professional judgement. However, officers have used their judgement but they do not share Ms X ‘s view. This is not evidence of fault and a site visit by the Ombudsman would not lead to us questioning an officer’s professional judgement. The site has been visited and at the current time the Council is satisfied with what has taken place with future inspections and monitoring planned.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman