Summary: We do not have reason to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to challenge the flood defence works Sheffield City Council carried out a few years ago, due to their likely impact on flood risk in the Doncaster area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council regarding this matter.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint and his comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of Mr X’s complaint correspondence with the Council and the Council’s Flood Investigation and Doncaster Flood Recovery reports in September 2020.

Back to top

What I found

4. After a serious flooding incident in 2007, Sheffield City Council (‘Sheffield CC’) decided to implement a series of flood defence measures in its area. One of the main projects involved works in the Lower Don Valley, which were started around 2014 and completed in early 2018.
5. Mr X was an elected Councillor when the Sheffield CC works were proposed. Mr X said he asked the Council at the time to make sure there would be no adverse impact on flood risk in Doncaster. He said the Council told him there would be no increased risk.
6. In November 2019 there was a significant flooding event in and around Doncaster which caused considerable damage. Mr X then complained to the Council as he felt the flooding showed his previous warnings had been correct and it should have done more to prevent this happening.

Back to top

Analysis

7. But my view is that we should not start an investigation of Mr X’s complaint as it is unlikely we would uncover evidence to justify a finding of fault by the Council.
8. In particular, I do not see we are in a position to conclude that there was a causal link between the flood defences Sheffield CC installed after 2007 and the floods in Doncaster in 2019.
9. Following the flood incident in 2019 the Council was required to carry out an investigation and produce a report under Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The Council commissioned specialist consultants to undertake out this work. The Council also consulted with other relevant authorities, including the Environment Agency (EA), in producing the final report.
10. One of the issues covered in the investigation and report was the cause of the floods. In this respect the report’s overall conclusion was that an unusually wet autumn followed by a combination of two large rain events led to a river flow and flood level beyond current design standards of flood protection, causing widespread flooding.
11. In respect of one of the worst hit areas, the report commented specifically on speculation that the Sheffield CC flood defences were a cause of, or contributor to, the greater extent of flooding around Doncaster in 2019 compared to 2007, when the circumstances were similar. But the report said it would be hard to conclude a significant difference here that could easily be attributed to the Sheffield flood defence improvements, given all the other variables.
12. In addition the EA, which has operational responsibility for managing the risk of flooding from main rivers, was a statutory consultee regarding Sheffield CC’s Lower Don Valley flood defence scheme. This meant Sheffield CC was required to demonstrate to the EA that the works would not increase flood risk to others. The EA recently confirmed to Mr X that Sheffield CC’s Flood Risk Assessment showed no downstream impact, so it did not have any reason to object to the proposed scheme at the time.
13. We cannot decide about the causes of flooding events. That is a matter of professional judgement and a decision for the relevant authorities to make. As a result I see no reason for us to question the views of the professionals responsible for assessing the flooding issues in this case, or that we would be in a position to find fault with the Council for relying on those professional judgements.
14. In the circumstances I also consider we are unlikely to find reason to fault the Council for not necessarily taking Mr X’s previous advice about raising objections to Sheffield CC’s flood defence plans.

Final decision

15. We do not have grounds to start an investigation of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to oppose Sheffield City Council’s flood defence proposals a few years ago on the basis they would increase the risk of flooding in the Doncaster area. This is because we are unlikely to uncover evidence to justify a finding of fault against the Council in this regard.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman