Re: planning application MW.0027/22 - Oxford flood alleviation scheme
I believe that this planning application should be considered by an inspector or minister of state, and not by Oxfordshire County Council.
I also believe that the application should be refused, irrespective of who considers it.
Taking these in turn.
Who determines the application.
The main point here is that the scheme concerns matters that go beyond just Oxford, and so should be considered at a higher level.
Those matters are…
Firstly, the damage caused to bio-diversity by the scheme is in respect of nationally rare resources. These comprise:
- MG4a grassland: of which 6% of the national stock will be destroyed, damaged, or endangered by the scheme.
- A nationally rare plant: Creeping Marshwort. This is only found in Oxford, and the scheme would endanger the remaining stock.
Secondly, there is an impact on a national trunk road, in that that the EA have suggested a 40mph speed limit on part of the A34 trunk road in order to accommodate construction traffic.
There is a further point. It’s apparent from the EA’s own planning application that one component of the scheme, the 5km long two stage flood channel, provides relatively little flood protection compared to the other components. Yet, the flood channel will give rise to significant environmental, social, and financial costs.
Hence it would be rational to consider adjusting the scheme to omit the channel. I believe this has not been done because the EA are constrained by an arbitrary and inflexible targets over flood risk; specifically that a thousand properties to have their annual risk of flooding reduced to 1%.
If the application were to be determined by the county council this would leave them in a situation where they could approve an application that comes at a needlessly high environmental/social /financial cost.
With this in mind there would be two advantages if the decision were in the hands of the minister, or even a planning inspector.
Firstly: being external to Oxfordshire they would not have the prospect of making a decision in an environment where the local “establishment” ;at least two local authorities, plus powerful interest groups (e.g Oxfordshire local enterprise partnership) have strongly pushed for the scheme to be adopted.
Secondly: above county council level there may be some scope to interrogate the EA’s underlying targets for the scheme. This in turn could result in changes to the scheme that would reduce environmental/social/financial costs, whilst still delivering significant improvements in flood protection.
Why the application should NOT be approved.
Irrespective of who determines the application I believe it should be refused. There are numerous reasons for opposition to the proposed scheme,, however I am only referring to those that I believe can be taken account of under planning law and policy. Specifically ones that most clearly offend the National Planning Policy Framework, statute law, and the local plan.
Biodiversity
The National Planning Policy Framework requires that development respects the importance of bio-diversity. It should do this by the following mitigation hierarchy
- First, and ideally, avoid environmental impacts
- Secondly, mitigate impacts where these cannot be avoided
- Lastly, compensate for damage where mitigation is not possible. However, where damage is caused to biodiversity, then the Environment Act 2021 requires that compensation must exceed damage by at least 10%
Oxfordshire’s own minerals and waste local plan reflects this (policy C7(iii) )by stating “Development shall ensure that no significant harm would be caused to… Local Wildlife Sites… except where the need for and benefits of the development in that location clearly outweigh the harm”
However, the proposed scheme will cause considerable environmental damage: almost all of this due to the proposed two-stage 5km long flood channel. I referred to some of these damages earlier. They include the destruction of 1.33ha of MG4a grassland in Hinksey Meadow; and according to their own reports, the remaining 7.2ha will be at risk due to hydrological changes wrought by the two stage channel.
The EA could have honoured the hierarchy by properly investigating schemes that either avoided impacts (ie no channel), or mitigated impacts (i.e. a single stage channel), especially as two such alternatives (smoothed floodplain, and a pumped pipeline) were proposed at least four years ago.
The EA have now referenced two versions of the first of the above alternatives. These look at outcomes if all or part of the two stage channel is dispensed with. These are shown at appendix Q of the application. https://myeplanning.oxfordshire.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=10517&planId=3987&imageId=10211&isPlan=True&fileName=ES App Q Modelling Review of No-channel.pdf
Ironically, analysis of these shows that both would provide considerable flood protection. For example the proposed scheme reduces the number of residential properties with a greater than 1.33% annual risk of flooding from 1126 to 180. The corresponding reduction without the flood channel would be from 1126 to 234. In other words a difference of 5.7% (54 dwellings)
If the EA had developed these they would be following environmental impact good practice, which is to investigate other alternatives to the same degree as the preferred option. A further incentive for this would be a saving of at least £30 million of public money.
Yet rather than building on this, and seeing the opportunity to reduces environmental/social/ financial costs whilst still providing flood protection, they have seemingly treated this as an Aunt Sally. Something set up with the specific intent to be knocked down.
A local expert, Dr Tim King, has stated that Hinksey Meadow is at least a thousand years old in its present state. Even the EA concede that any alternative meadow will not replace what’s been lost as “part of its value comes from being managed the same way for hundreds of years”.
In other words this is not just a field that’s at risk, but a unique environment by dint of its flora and its its unbroken linkage to our past.
Above I referred to the Environment Act 2021. Because the EA’s scheme neither avoids nor fully mitigates environmental harm, it has to compensate by at least 10% more than what’s lost.
The EA calculate they will compensate by a mere 10.1% over the loss.
However, common sense casts doubt over this realism of this figure. Not least as it relies on optimal outcomes with replacement plantings – and fails to reflect the failure rate (up to 40% in practice) of the same.
This is especially so given that the environmental gain relies on being able to transplant some of the MG4a grassland to existing meadows ; a very questionable undertaking bearing in mind the particular needs of MG4a.
More importantly; the EA’s full calculations of net gain do not form part of the planning application. Therefore, the validity of their claims cannot be examined. I am aware that a FOIA request has been made for these, but has not resulted in their disclosure, despite exceeding the time allowed under the FOIA.
Recreation and open space land.
The EA plan to use compulsory powers to acquire open space land (Hinksey Meadow). Some of this will transformed into the flood channel, and so future access will be limited. This mean that under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 they (as acquiring authority) are required to provide other suitable land to compensate.
The EA propose that some of this come from what I call the Jewson field. This is land on the NE side of Hinksey Meadow, that is or was owned by Jewson’s, being contiguous to the property they operate as a builders merchant.
However, it is a matter of fact that the public have had unfettered access to this land for many years. (I myself have done so since 1991, and the EA’s own survey’s have evidenced public use ), to the point that I suggest that equitable rights in favour of the public now exist over this land.
Therefore, if the public have and continue to enjoy use of this land as open space, it cannot be used to compensate for the loss of other open public space. Consequently the requirement to provide compensatory land is not met, and so the land should not be acquired using a CPO. Without the CPO land the two stage channel cannot be created.
On a wider point. The construction of the channel, and to a lesser extent it’s existence on completion of the scheme, will also run counter to the spirit of the NPPF.
This is because Para 92(c ) requires that "..planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which:enable and support healthy lifestyles…for example through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure.."
Hinksey Meadow, the “Electric Avenue” that links Osney Mead with South Hinksey Village, plus other fields to the south of Willow Walk, all form part of public open space which is heavily used for recreation. This use is referenced in the planning application, but all of the surveys were carried out before 2020. Since then, the use of these spaces appears to have increased. This is probably due to locals making use of the areas during lockdown, and of the back of the increase in home working.
The proposed OFAS scheme would reduce the use of these areas, and so run counter to the wider intent of the NPPF. This would happen in two ways:
- During the three year construction period for the channel access to all these areas would be greatly reduced.
- On completion of the scheme those areas comprising the channel will have reduced access on account of their form and function, and so this will permanently reduce the open green space available for public use.
Carbon production/release and climate change.
Para 153 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change. Flowing from this Oxfordshire has an aim of to be net-zero for carbon by 2050. Therefore development that creates, or leads to the release of significant amounts of carbon needs to be considered carefully.
The planning application includes the assertion that the scheme will generate approximately 20,000 tonnes of carbon over its lifetime. However, once again the calculations are not supplied, and again a FOIA request has not yet resulted in any information being supplied.
The relevance of this is that we cannot be sure what factors the EA have taken account in their calculations. Is it carbon emitted by the construction efforts, or does it also reflect the carbon release from excavating over 350,000 tones of earth?
Traffic on the A34
Para 111 of the NPPF states that "Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe"
I believe that the proposed scheme creates conditions that reduces safety on the A34, as well as creating an impact on the road network in the form of congestion.
The scheme will create extra traffic, some from construction personnel but more significantly from tipper trucks removing excavated earth. The EA expect 144 HGV movements a day (for three years) at South Hinksey. These numbers are a problem because they are of heavily laden slow moving lorries that have to access the A34 from a short slip road.
The EA have suggested a reduction in the speed limit to 40 mph, this will effect a section of the road that currently has a 50mph limit, as well as part with the 70mph limit.
There is an obvious safety issue here, as well as one around delays, as fast moving traffic has to slow down from 60 to 40mph, on one of the busiest trunk roads in England. This will also create particular difficulties for residents and visitors of South Hinksey village, as the A34 provides their only means of vehicular access.
From a resident of North Hinksey Lane.