Letter in the Oxford Times 4 October 2018
Emma Fermoy (Oxford Times 13 September) blandly tries to present the best possible outcome of the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme (OFAS). According to the County Council themselves, though, comments on the planning application have raised many issues which have not yet been properly addressed. Its pros and cons need to be honestly stated and critically evaluated.
She asked: is the scheme too large; could it be replaced by dredging; are the bridges extravagant, and is the environmental effect disproportionate?
Yes, the scheme is far too large; the dredging which many with intimate local knowledge advocate would certainly help; the bridges are so extravagant that they must have an ulterior purpose and the environmental effect is disproportionate to the benefits.
Re-modelling by the Environment Agency (EA) shows that if the planned bunds and culverts are in place near residential areas, excavating a large channel makes little difference to the water levels in the worst affected spots, Osney and Botley. Instead, the channel provides exaggerated protection to land far away from the housing. In the process it will destroy 133 acres of Green Belt, up to 4,000 trees, their associated wildlife, and historic flood meadows. It will carve a needless scar on the landscape for tens of years and affect beautiful and historic views.
Why was a channel considered at all? Early sketches of the current scheme (2009, 2012) did not provide embankments around Osney Mead, nor major excavation into the western flood plain. Could the real purpose of the channel be to dry out land nearer the city, for example on Osney Mead? This could explain where the money to fund the project is coming from. Using public money to build a channel which hardly benefits the properties which currently flood is not, lawfully, the correct way forward. Best practice for the construction industry and planners would, instead, be to remove some of the 25 hectares of landfill deposited in Oxford’s floodplain since the 1830s.
Without first dredging existing waterways, which have hardly been dredged for ten years and are rapidly silting up, it makes little sense to create a new channel 4 km long and up to 250 metres wide which will require constant expensive maintenance, cutting, grazing, and perhaps dredging. Meanwhile, the next Osney and Botley flood may be worse than before, because of the absence of recent routine EA waterway maintenance. This happened on the Somerset Levels.
If the channel were not to be dug, the western flood plain and Willow Walk could be saved. The lawfully correct way forward Is to separate flood alleviation from enabling development. Anyone wanting to build on the flood plain will need to construct their own flood protection.
Many are now campaigning for the Scheme to be modified to protect vulnerable homes better. We must insist that Oxford applies best practice to its flood plain, at the same time protecting Willow Walk.
Dr Tim King, Dr Chris Sugden, Dr Rod Chalk, Dr Antoinette Pirie, Dr Chris Vickery, Aylin Ergeli, Pauline Skinner, Jonathan Madden
HIinksey and Osney Environment Group