Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Environment Agency’s decision not to allow her community group to clear sand off local flood defences. The purpose of the structure is to protect the area from flooding and coastal erosion. The Agency was entitled to reach its professional judgement decision that removing the sand would compromise the flood protection afforded by the structure.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Environment Agency (EA) has refused her community group permission to clear sand from a large concrete coastal flood defence structure.
2. Mr X says the sand on the structure restricts people’s access along it. She wants the EA to allow the sand to be cleared, which has happened along other parts of the coast.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if 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

4. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Ms X to reply, and considered her response.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X considers the concrete flood defence structure is a ‘promenade’ for people to use when on the coast. She says that access was lost to many when the weather deposited the sand on the structure.
6. The EA has advised Ms X that the flood defence structure is not a footpath or other kind of right of way. The EA says there is no duty on it to maintain public access to the structure. Its purpose is to aid in the flood defences for that section of the coast. It is designed to gather sand because that provides additional protection from flood waters. For these reasons, the EA has decided it will not give permission for the sand to be removed.
7. There is not enough evidence of fault by the EA in its decision to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Officers have considered Ms X’s request and decided they should not grant it because to do so would reduce the effectiveness of a structure designed to protect against flood. I consider that is a professional judgement the EA, as the body responsible for coastal flood defences, was entitled to make.
8. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction over complaints against the EA is limited to matters of flooding and coastal defences. An EA decision on whether to provide or restrict public access to land, even where that land includes a flood defence structure, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
9. If Ms X wants the flood defence structure mapped as a right of way, she would need to apply to the local highways authority to register that designation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the EA to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman