ENVIRONMENT AGENCY USE OF COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS IN FLOOD SCHEME “FLAWED” – PUBLIC INQURY HEARS
CREDIBLE alternatives to the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme (OFAS), presented over many years to the Environment Agency (EA) by local campaigning groups were "dismissed without being given the proper scrutiny they required", and so the ‘high bar’ legally set for Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO) in the public interest have not been met.
So said Mr Andrew Byass, a barrister specialising in planning, environmental and compulsory purchase law in his opening address this morning to the Public Inquiry, sitting in Oxford, investigating the legality of the use of CPOs by the EA for their proposed £176-million OFAS.
Mr Byass has been instructed by local campaigning groups including the Ferry Hinksey Trust (FHT) and the Oxford Flood and Environmental Group (OFEG), who have worked on the issue for over seven years as part of the Hinksey and Osney Environment Group (HOEG). He told the Inquiry that his clients had personally been affected by past floods in Oxford, and do not object, in principle, to a flood alleviation scheme, but they do “object to the extent of consideration given to alternatives to the CPO Scheme”.
Setting out the basis of the campaigner’s case, which will be heard until December 18, following which a Report will be sent to the Environment Secretary, Mr Byass said: "It is uncontroversial that private land cannot be taken unless the public interest decisively demands its compulsory acquisition. That is, there must be shown to be a compelling case in the public interest to justify the confirmation of a CPO.
“It is a feature of this high threshold, to justify compulsory acquisition of private land, that proper consideration must be given to whether the purpose for which the acquiring authority is proposing to acquire the land could be achieved by any other means.”
He said campaigners had sought to engage with the EA to ensure that proper consideration was given to investigating alternatives to the CPO Scheme. Campaigners – with the help of paid experts – had sought to test the robustness of the EA’s approach, including by raising viable alternatives to the CPO Scheme which don’t require the acquisition of the Trust’s land, or the provision of a new flood channel through the western Oxford floodplain. However, he said: “The Agency declined opportunities to fully explore these alternatives with the objectors, and to model them all in the same way as the CPO Scheme.”
Undeterred, campaigners raised funds and instructed their own flood modelling expert, Clive Carpenter - with more than 30 years of experience in the strategic planning, feasibility and design of large-scale water projects globally. Mr Carpenter has recent provided flood risk assessment, modelling and risk reduction for an 80km section of HS2.
Despite the EA’s hydraulic models and files only provided to Mr Carpenter on October 10, the Inquiry heard that Mr Carpenter has considered four alternatives to the CPO Scheme, which the Inquiry would learn more about over the coming weeks of the Inquiry:
- Alternative A2 – no channel
- Alternative A2r – raised defences:with raised (higher elevation) flood defences – an option never tested by the EA in their analysis of no-channel alternatives.
- Alternative A3 – increased conveyance at downstream road and rail bridges:building on A2, with further increases in the conveyance (cross-sectional area) of two of the key hydraulic structures that control flow out of the western floodplain. Again, never tested by the EA in their analysis of no channel alternatives, and
- Alternative P – pumped twin pipe option:based on A2, but with a pumped pipeline as an alternative to the channel. Again, never tested by the EA, given their apparent objection to active, powered systems.
Mr Byass told the Inspector: "If, as we will seek to demonstrate, these alternatives show potentially viable means of achieving the same flood risk alleviation objectives as OFAS, with the same or similar benefits, then they require further testing and optioneering. Further refinement of these alternatives is capable of being undertaken; and indeed, that is partly the point.
"It is simply not possible to conclude that proper consideration has been given to whether the scheme objectives can be achieved through an alternative that does not require the acquisition of FHT’s land, and which avoids the significant harm to the environment which would follow from the CPO Scheme, if such testing and optioneering has not been undertaken."
The lawyer said that “the EA’s reasons for rejecting Alternative A2, and for not undertaking further analysis and assessment of all these alternatives, are flawed”.
In evidence to the Inquiry, campaigners claim the CPO Scheme will cause irreversible harm to precious, extremely rare, and valued environments, which have unique ecological and biodiversity characteristics, and which bring significant recreational and amenity benefits to the local community. Key among these environments is the MG4a grassland in Hinksey Meadow, which has been described as among the finest examples of the surviving habitat in the County, and possibly the UK. The Trust’s land also has important ecological, amenity and other value in its own right."
Mr Byass concluded his opening remarks to the Inquiry by saying: “The local community is acutely aware of the risks of flooding and want to do everything reasonable to protect our community. [That] in this context, requires proper testing of alternatives. Such further testing would represent a proportionate approach and must be undertaken before any conclusion could be reached that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the confirmation of the CPO.”
Further details of the submissions by the FHT and Environment Groups to the Public Inquiry can be accessed at www.hinkseyandosney.org and www.oxfordfloodandenvironmentgroup.com
The Public Inquiry continues.