OXFORD FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEME CPO INQUIRY
Oral Statement of Martin Dowie as an Individual Botley & North Hinksey Parish Councillor, Parishioner and Allotment Tenant
(Non-Statutory Objector OX 011N)
13 December 2023
1.0 Oral Statement of Martin Dowie as Individual Botley & North Hinksey Parish Councillor
1.1 Botley & North Hinksey Parish Council (B&NHPC) consists of 14 Councillors. At the last election in May 2023 there were 3966 electors and an estimated parish population of about 5,500.
1.2 As an individual parish councillor I support the B&NHPC objection to the OFAS planning application (Proof of Evidence 011N/1c Appendix 1) and response to the CPO.
1.3 B&NHPC continues to object to the scheme as a whole and hopes the scheme will be revised, eliminating the secondary channel and modifying remaining elements as necessary.
1.4 On 16 November 2023 B&NHPC agreed to submit a request to VWHDC to withdraw their support for the current flood scheme.
1.5 With regard to the CPO for B&NHPC land, the Parish Council does not want to give up ownership and believes the CPO is premature.
1.6 The B&NHPC objection to the planning application addresses biodiversity, recreation and amenity, traffic and highways, climate change, pollution and health, and cost efficiency. The Parish Council’s comments are largely consistent with comments from other objectors such as the Ferry Hinksey Trust (FHT), the Hinksey and Osney Environmental Group (HOEG), the Oxford Flood & Environment Group (OFEG) and Oxford Preservation Trust (OPT). I believe these matters have been well covered by other objectors and I wish to avoid unnecessary duplication in this oral statement.
1.7 B&NHPC has also expressed concern about the independence of the planning system. If I may put it bluntly, there is concern about the EA and supporters of the scheme ‘marking their own homework’ both with regard to selection of the ‘preferred option’ and the economic case.
1.8 B&NHPC agree with the suggestion that “it would be following environmental impact good practice to investigate other alternatives to the same degree as the preferred option” and as such support proposals that the Inquiry Inspector recommends to the Secretary of State that he order the EA to fully consider the four alternative options for a scheme, as presented by FHT and OFEG, including a full cost comparison, based on a detailed specification.
1.9 I understand the gist of the EA arguments about the ‘proportionate approach’ leading to selection of the ‘preferred option’. However, there are subtle and sometimes unintended ways to weight and influence what becomes the ‘preferred option’, especially when the process may not be particularly transparent or understood by the public. I do not believe there has been a ‘level playing field’ in the consideration of scheme options.
1.10 I believe that deficiencies in the selection process for the ‘preferred option’ may be so serious that it may be appropriate for the Inquiry Inspector to recommend to the Secretary of State that the CPO not be confirmed.
2.0 Oral Statement of Martin Dowie as Botley & North Hinksey as a Parishioner
2.1 As a parishioner my experience is that the consultation has been wholly inadequate and the EA public explanation of the reasoning behind the proposed scheme and the potential consequences have been very difficult to understand, let alone accept. I believe this experience is shared by many members of the public.
2.2 The Save Hinksey Meadows petition asking for, (1) a public inquiry to scrap the channel and save Oxford’s iconic floodplain meadows and to adopt a more effective, climate friendly whole river flood scheme and (2) to re-designate Hinksey Meadow as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, has attracted more than 5,270 signatures.
2.3 Of the 232 responses to the OFAS planning application the vast majority were objections on environmental grounds, poor value for money, inadequate evaluation of alternatives and loss of public access and amenity. B&NHPC also believe the scheme “appears to be a very poor use of public funds”.
2.4 The FHT crowdfunding website has raised more than £70,000, to pay for Public Inquiry legal costs. I believe there is deep public unhappiness that the EA receive public money to prepare and present their case but the objectors have to raise their own funds for legal help and expert witnesses to challenge flaws in the scheme and ensure some degree fairness.
2.5 The Parish Council correctly state in their recent correspondence to the VWHDC that “the current scheme is not well supported by the parishioners” and have asked that the District Council “withdraw their support until such time as the concerns of the public have been adequately heard and accommodated”.
2.6 If the views of the public carry any weight, then majority public opinion and the information the public has submitted support the request that the Inquiry Inspector recommend to the Secretary of State that the CPO not be confirmed.
3.0 Oral Statement of Martin Dowie as Botley & North Hinksey Parish Council as an Allotment Tenant
3.1 As an Allotment tenant I object to the scheme as currently proposed and believe that the CPO is unjustified, excessive and premature. This is consistent with my previously stated objections (please see Sections 1 & 2 above).
3.2 Although a small and personal consideration when compared to the extensive and long-term damage the overall scheme will cause, my valued amenity and that of other allotment tenants on the site (current and future) will be adversely affected by the new two stage channel, not just for 3-5 years during construction but probably permanently as a result of inevitable landscape and management changes.
3.3 The land the EA wishes to acquire includes a part of Seacourt Stream which is adjacent to/part of allotments owned by B&NHPC for the enjoyment and use of its parishioners (Plot interest 04/004). I am not clear on what works are being proposed and how, given the extent of the proposed scheme, the EA have demonstrated that this specific piece of land is absolutely required.
3.4. If the land (plot 04/004) is not absolutely required, I ask the Inquiry Inspector to recommend to the Secretary of State that the CPO not be confirmed.
4.0 Conclusion
4.1 I believe the need for a scheme is not in dispute. However, I believe the scheme currently proposed is not the right one, with the proposed new two stage channel being the most controversial and destructive element. This is also the view of B&NHPC, many landowners affected by the CPO and thousands of members of the public.
4.2 Planning permission for the scheme has not been granted and there is a strong case for it to be refused for all the same reasons that oppose the granting of the CPO.
4.3 I ask the Inquiry Inspector to recommend to the Secretary of State that this CPO not be confirmed.