Compensation awarded in environmental damage case under Water Resources Act 1991

Introduction

The case of Roger Brookhouse & Anor v The Environment Agency pertains to a claim for compensation under the Water Resources Act 1991 due to the construction of flood prevention works. The claimants contended that the works raised groundwater levels, causing damage to their property, The King’s Lodging. This analysis delves into the key topics discussed, elucidates the legal principles applied, and directly links them to the relevant parts of the case summary.

Key Facts

The claimants, Mr. and Mrs. Brookhouse, own The King’s Lodging, a property situated by the River Stour in Sandwich. In response to a tidal defence scheme implemented by The Environment Agency, the claimants alleged that the construction of a new wall led to raised groundwater levels, resulting in physical damage to their house and an increased risk of flooding. The primary question was whether the works caused a rise in groundwater levels, thus entitling the claimants to compensation under Schedule 21 of the Water Resources Act 1991.

Legal Principles

The legal underpinning of the claim was rooted in Schedule 21 to the Water Resources Act 1991. Under paragraph 5(1), if injury is sustained by any person due to the exercise of powers under section 165(1) to (3) of the Act by the appropriate agency, that agency is liable to provide full compensation to the injured party. In this case, if the Tribunal finds that the works have caused damage to the claimants’ property, the Environment Agency would be liable to pay compensation.

Evidence was meticulously analyzed, particularly the expert hydrological evidence, to determine whether there had been a rise in groundwater levels post-construction as claimed by the petitioners. The hydrologists’ evidence focused on historical groundwater levels, the integrity and impact of the new wall, and the predicted future occurrence of extreme high tides and their potential to cause further damage. The Tribunal also considered historical survey data and expert structural and surveying reports to ascertain the pre- and post-works condition of the claimants’ property.

Outcomes

The Tribunal found in favor of the claimants, deciding that the flood prevention works carried out by The Environment Agency had caused an increase in groundwater levels at The King’s Lodging by between 0.5m to 1m. This rise in groundwater level had resulted in damage to the property, validating the claimants’ request for compensation. The decision was based on several items, including the evidence from the GL Martin investigation in 2007, the observations regarding the pool’s re-lining in 2004, and the CH2M recharge calculations.

Conclusion

The case represents an intricate interplay between environmental changes due to human intervention and property rights. The Tribunal’s detailed assessment of hydrological and structural data, under the framework of the Water Resources Act 1991, reflects the rigorous standards applied in cases where property damage arises from state or agency-implemented environmental projects. This case reinforces the principle that agencies must compensate for injury or damage resulting from the execution of their powers, highlighting the potential ramifications of public works on private properties. The findings set a precedent for similar disputes where changes in environmental conditions have adversely impacted properties.