Summary: Ms X complained about the Environment Agency’s decision to grant a permit for works to a river. Ms X said this caused land she used for animal grazing to flood. We have not found the Environment Agency at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Environment Agency wrongly approved a permit to carry out works to a stretch of river. This has caused land she uses for animal grazing to flood.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (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. As part of this investigation I considered the information provided by Ms X. I made enquiries with the Environment Agency and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to Ms X and the Environment Agency and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Environment Agency (the Agency) has operational responsibility for managing risks from flooding from main rivers.
7. The Agency does not have to carry out a public consultation when looking at flood risk activities if it considers the proposed application will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. (Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2016, Section 5)

Background

8. Ms X uses fields near to a river for animal grazing. Several landowners along with the Wild Trout Trust (WTT) applied for a permit from the Agency to carry out works to the river. The purpose of the works was to improve the habitat of wildlife in the chalk stream and increase the natural function of the floodplain to temporarily store water during a flood.
9. The works involved raising part of the river bed using gravel and partially removing some of the levees to connect the river to the floodplain. The WTT applied for the permit in April 2022. Along with the application it provided, risk assessments, floodplain analysis, site plans and details of the works.
10. In May 2022, the Agency granted the permit for the works to the river. In coming to its decision it considered the risk assessment provided and the impact of flooding. The Agency provided a decision document which listed the factors it considered when deciding to grant the permit.
11. In early 2023, Ms X contacted the Agency about flooding of land she used to graze animals. Ms X said the flooding occurred because of works to the river.
12. The Agency visited the site in February 2023. Email correspondence between the Agency and Ms X showed the Agency said the works carried out by the WTT and high flows in late 2022 could have contributed to flooding. The Agency said it would ask the WTT to hold a site meeting. The Agency said the permit the Agency granted said the WTT should take measures to ensure there is not an unacceptable increase in flooding to third parties.
13. Following further correspondence between the Agency, WTT and Ms X, a meeting took place at the site in October 2023. The WTT agreed to carry out some works to the upstream part of the site, however it needed to apply for a permit to do this.
14. In November 2023, Ms X complained to the Agency about its decision to grant a permit for the works. Ms X said the Agency did not tell her about the works and the works had caused land she used for animal grazing to flood.
15. The Agency responded to Ms X’s complaint in December 2023. The Agency told Ms X it attended a site meeting with the landowner and WTT in October 2023 and the WTT said it would return the upstream river level back to its original level. The Agency said the WTT needed to apply for a permit to carry out these works.
16. Ms X asked the Agency to consider her complaint at the next stage shortly after.
17. The Agency responded in January 2024. The Agency told Ms X it could not take enforcement action as the works were not in breach of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016. The Agency said the WTT offered a solution to return part of the river to its original level and the Agency supports this providing the correct permits are in place from the WTT. The Agency said while it did financially contribute to the works and issued the permit it did not carry out the works to the river and does not own the land.
18. Ms X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman,

Analysis

19. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Ms X disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
20. The Agency received the permit application from the WWT in April 2022. Ms X said she was not consulted about the permit application. The Agency explained it did not carry out a public consultation as it did not consider the permit would have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The Agency said in coming to this decision it did not believe the application was a large scale infrastructure project which had the potential to impact whole towns or communities.
21. I have not found the Agency at fault on this point. It was up to the Agency to decide whether to hold a public consultation. It has explained why it has not and the factors it considered. I cannot see any fault in its decision making.
22. In relation to the permit application, the Agency showed it considered factors relating to flood risk and drainage when deciding to grant the permit. This included the risk assessments provided, flood plain analysis and plans detailing the works. The Agency’s decision statement showed it considered the impact of using the natural flood plain where the works were taking place and the effect of flooding downstream.
23. There is no evidence of administrative fault by the Agency in the way it has reached its decision to approve the permit. If Ms X considers that failures by the Agency has resulted in flooding to her land then that is something she could pursue in the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation and found there was no fault by the Agency.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman