An Update......

 

 

 

 

 

In 2009 we applied for 2 water licenses (impoundment+abstraction)  to operate a hydropower water turbine at North Mill on Avoncliff weir. As per the extant process we applied and the application was determined by a local statutory official and a draft license was issued.

Six months later an EA official from the EA National Permitting centre in Nottingham awarded the actual physical license to a 2nd applicant - who was known to him. Rules were broken, policy ignored and the EA officials behaved very badly in other areas...  We had to go to Judicial Review to get the license award quashed (It should have been a mandating order) - we then had to re-apply for a licence £50k out of pocket...

We were ready to go and had civil engineering works + planning in place and an order in for a turbine etc. The other applicant had no turbine even specified and did not even own enough land at the weir to build a scheme,  no planning approval and the enduring enmity of his neighbour whose land he proposed to build on (and an obstructive interaction covenant was in place on both their property deeds)  ... 

 

The EA plainly ignored the Judges Instructions in the JR quash.

The EA then conducted an unprecedented determination of two applications simultaneously and proceeded to torture the process with a faked up conclusion to a Flood Risk Assessment and fake performance figures for a turbine design that had never been built before. EA officials threatened the North Mill owners - Steve and Ewan Earl that "you'll never get a scheme here - you're at the back of any queue"

Given the procession of procedural irregularities, lies and contrived arbitrary decisions our then MP Duncan Hames placed a complaint with The Ombudsman - who chose to investigate.

7 years passed and the other turbine applicant sold out as he could not build as he did not own the land to build it on (and that restrictive covenant) ...  another owner materialised and inherited the duff license which the EA arbitrarily renewed...

The Ombudsman investigation trundled along and in 2021 they finished their findings report which adjudged the Environment Agency to have committed multiple counts of maladministration and pervasive, egregious bias against the hydropower scheme at North Mill.

The EA formally accepted The Ombudsman's finding and appointed an Independent Assessor to scope the damages to the Earl brothers business consequent from their officials' malign antics. It turned out that the EA appointed assessor (a  barrister) lacked the credentials or training to be an independent assessor and we believe he shared a forensic financial audit (which we'd had performed largely at the suggestion of PHSO at a cost of £80k) with EA officials contrary to his independent status. The EA officials then decided that they would NOT  pay damages under the agreed PHSO process and would dispense with an independent assessor and decide for themselves what the damages were ....

The act of dispensing with the Independent Assessor triggered what's known as "non-compliance with The Ombudsman" and actually ends the Ombudsman process - the only remedy then such as it is - is for PHSO to "place the report before Parliament" which PHSO duly did and the matter went to the PACAC Select Committee. The PACAC Chair wrote publicly to Sir James Bevan asking for an elaboration of the EA's decision process in dispensing with an independent assessor and their decision to pay what damages they felt like paying... 

- and that's where we are today - the EA's response to William Wragg, PACAC Chairman is still not  on the record and procedural delay has been inserted by Bevan relaying his response via DEFRA... (Seemingly no problem showing up at @CommonsEFRA and other parliamentary venues to push their interests though it would seem)

The EA has spent (well) in excess (from FoI) of £1.4 million in direct costs spitefully punishing people who challenged a decision about a couple of licenses for which they charged £145. What really irks is that the Ombudsman's finding and report are not binding so that a misbehaving public body has an ejector seat from being held to account - they agree one day with the Ombudsman and then the next day they say - nah...  - we didn't mean it, we're not going to do what we said we'd do and there's nothing you can do about it. - the Ombudsman has zero power to compel a public body to do anything beyond investigation - they are not in control of the remedy.

13 years and counting - we've been told government lawyers say that damages keep accruing until this is settled.... 

 

The EA's antics continue undiminished. Freedom of Information requests are ignored or evasively responded to. Another trip to The Information Commissioner and another censure from that body to add to the one we've already triggered?

 

Timeline:

31st March 2022

PHSO lays "The Earl Report" before Parliament d/t non compliance 

19th July 2022
Letter from PACAC Chair William Wragg MP to EA's Sir James Bevan re PHSO Earl Report - with a correspondence deadline.

31 August 2022 Sir James Bevan/EA purportedly responded - response relayed to/via DEFRA

 

- no public response to PACAC advising that the response had been lodged - this was only claimed by the EA in Feb 2023 via FoI.

12th September 2022 

PACAC-EA correspondence deadline expired.

 
78 days elapse

29th November 2022 

PACAC annual PHSO scrutiny meeting where Rob Behrens (The Ombudsman) raised the matter of non compliance briefly.

9th January 2023 - 119 days after PACAC deadline
- Defra officials and in particular SoS /Minister are/is still withholding the EA's response to the PACAC Select Committee.

While there have been significant, profound national events over the time elaborated above,  and one might accept "Force Majeure" -  *no reply* has been forthcoming - for what is essentially a procedural relay task.

It is not hard to perceive this as deliberate, orchestrated obstruction of the business of Parliament by a government department (or "NDPB" depending on how the EA officials feel on any random day) where officials appear to be showing contempt  for a Select Committee through targeted delay evading scrutiny at PACAC PHSO annual review where the Earl Report was brought up and then subsequent refusal to give PACAC sight of the EA's response to William Wragg.

Note for any legislators reading this:

We wouldn't be here if acceptance of The Ombudsman Report + recommendations by a public body constituted a contract in law / was legally binding.