Summary
We should not allow subterfuge and alacrity for finding a ‘solution’ to one problem to approve hastily a crude, crass and disruptive plan. Time, money and cross-discipline creative energy needs to be invested by Oxford which is a home to heritage, research and innovation, to come up with a superior plan to conserve water that will confront the complex challenges of the future without changing forever the places that we should be cherishing and conserving.
Limited public debate
At first it seems extraordinary that there has been relatively little discussion about a scheme - estimated at costing the vast sum of £120 million - that will cause an unprecedented level of disturbance and environmental change in one of the most beautiful parts of Oxford.
Why has public debate and interest in the scheme has been at a rather low level? In part, I am sure that this is because so few people have become aware of how dramatic and extensive the ‘environmental re-engineering’ will be. The official material that came through my letter box was, to be polite, understated. If I had not heard, by word of mouth, about the nature of the plans I would bet that I’d still be in the dark about it all. Whilst there were opportunities to see and discuss the plans, I did not get the feeling that this grand scheme was being given the sort of profile that such a huge investment would normally receive. Inevitably, one begins to wonder to why this might be the case.
Could it be that the plans would not withstand closer scrutiny? Casually one might concede that a changing climate will necessitate improving the flood protection by such radical methods. However, the problem is much more complex. To anticipate future pressures generated by man-made changes not only on the floodplain but also surrounding areas will be extremely difficult.
Twenty years from now, will everyone look back and bitterly regret allowing a vast and expensive ditch to be ploughed through a swathe of previously protected countryside? I am sure that this will be the case. We need to ensure that the present scheme is not approved. We must not allow other options that are more in keeping with the environment, represent sustainable development and preserve precious natural resources to be cast aside.
This scheme conflicts with other regional needs. Whilst it intends to move water out of the Oxford floodplain, simultaneously in Oxfordshire there is a considerable debate over planning a water reservoir to meet with projected requirements. Not only have water shortages been headline-making this summer but high profile claims have been made that climate change will exacerbate water shortages in the future which raise the possibility of insufficient supplies to meet consumer demands.
Short Sighted Failure
It seems short-sighted to design and implement, at great expense, a ditch to move precious water away from Oxford. It seems common sense to ensure that water is conserved and employ various means to prevent excess water from moving into the floodplain in the first instance. A feasible plan is needed to conserve water for later use when it is plentiful and would otherwise cause flooding. Oxford is home to much internationally significant research and innovation. Its inability to deliver a state-of-the-art plan that will solve these closely connected problems with minimal environmental impacts would be a spectacular failure and a wasted opportunity.
The need to have joined-up approaches to water management will only become more important in the future. In recent years there has been a considerable amount of development in the Botley and Cumnor areas. This is increasing the pressure on the immediate area of floodplain due to water run-off from buildings and other structures whilst extra residents and businesses add to the demand for fresh water supplies.
On the horizon, more dramatic developments and many new houses are planned for the local area. Building almost from scratch a drainage channel across the floodplain seems a blunt, unsophisticated device. Is it possible to factor in all the potential effects of man-made environmental change to guarantee that the £120 million scheme can even solve the flooding problem alone? Surely it is better to stall such huge costs and determine if a more robust, creative and wide-ranging answer to local needs can be forthcoming?
Specious claims
The claims by the Environment Agency that large-scale re-engineering of the local landscape and ecology will, in time, increasebiodiversity seems specious. Where is the evidence to support this? It has taken considerable conservation efforts to expand the Oxford population of just one species - the endangered creeping marshwort (Apium repens) - into a protected area in a location that will be impacted by the scheme. Does the Environment Agency genuinely believe that actions such as cutting down hundreds of mature trees, bulldozing through old hedgerows and carving a huge ditch into ancient flood meadows to modify local hydrology will not generate a long-term decrease in the biodiversity?
Invasive weeds
Evidence indicates that the Environment Agency is not sufficiently prepared for the aftermath of the grand-scale disturbances to the area. The proposed radical changes to the environment will benefit invasive, non-native species. These will thrive and spread after the scheme has been instigated, often excluding native species. Their potential effect on the operation and effectiveness of the channel itself has not been given adequate attention. Control - let alone eradication - of invasive species across such a swathe of land is highly problematic. The planning submission appears to have no convincing long-term plan to deal with invasive species across the developed area – this is a serious oversight in planning for the future.
In particular, Hinksey Meadow represents a biodiverse habitat that was once far more abundant but is now vanishingly rare. How can a channel of this kind be inflicted on this precious protected area? Oxford has an international reputation for heritage and conservation yet seems prepared to sacrifice an important area for development as a drainage system. With increasingly fragmented natural habitats, conservation of this corridor of land in an urban setting should be a priority.
Subterfuge
We should not allow subterfuge and alacrity for finding a ‘solution’ to one problem to approve hastily a crude, crass and disruptive plan. Time, money and cross-discipline creative energy needs to be invested to come up with a superior plan that will confront the complex challenges of the future without changing forever the places that we should be cherishing and conserving.
Dr. Robert Grant-Downton