Channel White Elephant
Letter in the Oxford Times August 24 2018
We are all in favour of flood control in Oxford. The current application from the Environment Agency, however, does not hold water. It should be withdrawn. Instead, the money should be spent on more imaginative ideas.
A whole range of possibilities have been ignored, sacrificed to a myopic concentration on the concept first suggested four years ago. The numbers of houses and businesses expected to be protected is far fewer than expected. We might have to wait three years for a better plan for the residents of Osney and Botley, but that would be a small price to pay to hit the nail on the head
The excavation of a channel beside the Hinkseys, in countryside in the Green Belt, does very little for susceptible residents and businesses in Oxford itself, whilst destroying a public amenity. It will cost £83m of the £120m total. Surely we can obtain better value for money?
In order to produce a worthwhile application, the Environment Agency (EA) has stretched credibility to the limit.
Recent lack of maintenance to existing rivers and streams has contributed to flooding, but the EA claims that it will suddenly introduce frequent clipping in the wide secondary channel followed by efficient grazing. In Chris Andrew’s phrase, it is more likely to became a ‘rat infested swamp.’
By removing up to 4000 trees, their associated wildlife, and ancient flood meadows, the EA tries to argue that biodiversity will increase, not decrease.
Surely there are enough people in Oxford of sensitivity and taste, including those threatened by occasional flooding and directors of businesses willing to contribute to the cost, to oppose this speculative white elephant?
Oxford deserves, and should demand, something better. The Port Meadow flats demonstrate the penalties of inaction.
Tim King, Kingston Road, Oxford