Summary: Mr X complains the Environment Agency failed to properly deal with flood risk impact as a result of works it approved. The Environment Agency is at fault because it did not properly consider the flood risk to Mr X’s property. This did not cause injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Environment Agency (EA) failed to properly deal with flood risk impact as a result of works it approved.
2. Mr X says his garden was flooded and is at higher risk of flooding in the future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I considered supporting documents the EA provided.
7. Mr X and the EA had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

8. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
9. Work was undertaken to a river adjacent to Mr X’s property, which required a Flood Risk Assessment Permit (FRAP) to be completed by the EA.
10. The EA completed the FRAP and approved the works to the river.
11. During a storm, the river overflowed, flooding Mr X’s garden.
12. Mr X complained to the EA. The EA did not uphold Mr X’s complaint but accepted that a low point in Mr X’s garden was not included in the FRAP.
13. The EA explored whether the applicant completing the works would agree to raise the low spot as a gesture of good will. This was not agreed and the EA says Mr X should resolve this as the landowner.

Analysis

14. I have reviewed documents from the EA relating to the FRAP and pictures provided by Mr X showing flooding in his garden at different extents.
15. In determining the FRAP, the EA considered a hydraulic modelling report produced by a consultancy for the applicant. The hydraulic modelling report:
• Assessed the changes in channel depth and the relation to bank height. This shows there was a maximum raise to the level of the river bed of 30cm tapering to 0cm over an 8 metre distance.
• Modelled water depth comparisons at three locations near the works. One of these was on higher ground representing Mr X’s house.
• Did not model a water depth comparison at lower points in Mr X’s garden.
• Modelled flood outlines for both 100 year and 100 year climate change events. This identified flood risks including to Mr X’s land showing that a 100 year climate change flooding event could lead to increased flooding similar to the extent shown by Mr X’s pictures of the flooding.
16. Emails show the EA considered the potential loss in flow conveyance as a result of the proposed river works and asked for further information about this from the applicant.
17. The EA’s complaint response to Mr X accepted that it did not consider the low point in Mr X’s garden when it completed the FRAP and said it would consider this a learning point for the future. The EA should have considered whether the low point in Mr X’s garden should have been included in its assessment. I consider this to be fault by the EA.
18. The flooding occurred following a heavy storm. The EA says, “Storm Babet was an up to 1 in 100 year event and a quantity of rain and flow not seen …. since we started records in 2004.”
19. Hydrograph data for February and March 2024 provided by the EA support this view and show several high level water events less severe than Storm Babet. Mr X has confirmed to me that there have been no other flooding events in his garden since.
20. Mr X has provided hydrograph data from the same monitoring point covering a more extensive time period 2012 to 2024. This indicates there was a greater high water event in 2017, which Mr X says caused no flooding to his garden.
21. The hydrograph data comes from a location several miles from Mr X’s property. It may also contain data errors. Whilst relevant, it is therefore not necessarily a reliable indicator of the actual water level at Mr X’s home.
22. I have also reviewed the Government’s flood mapping data. This shows part of Mr X’s garden adjacent to the watercourse is classified in as Flood Zone 3, which has a high risk of flooding with a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) which equates to a 1 in 100 year average return period. The remainder of Mr X’s property is in Flood Zone 2.
23. The EA says the inclusion of another point of water depth comparison would be unlikely to have affected the outcome the FRAP decision, as this would not have changed the flood outline modelling contained in the hydraulic modelling report.
24. For these reasons, on the balance of probabilities, Mr X did not suffer injustice as a result because the outcome would have been the same.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have found fault by the Environment Agency which did not cause injustice to Mr X. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman