The National Audit Office
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9SP
February 5 2024
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing on behalf of the Ferry Hinksey Trust, the Oxford Flood and Environment Group https://www.oxfordfloodandenvironmentgroup.com/ and the Hinksey and Osney Environment Group www.hinkseyandosney.org with reference to the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme proposed by the Environment Agency.
The Public Enquiry into the 1000 CPO’s issued in relation to the scheme has just closed and we await the Inspector’s verdict later this Spring. The Oxfordshire County Council Planning Consultation is still open.
We set out our concerns to the Public Enquiry and these can be seen on our website https://hinkseyandosney.org/.
We need to bring to your attention that the scheme proposed by the Environment Agency is neither a prompt nor an appropriate solution, but also wastes up to £70 million of public money in its current projected cost of £176 million.
Their proposal for a flood channel is
- Poorly conceived
- Removes 10 hectares of flood storage
- Wastes public money
- Cannot respond to future climate change
- Is objected to by 93% of local people
- Causes huge environmental Destruction, not on the EA balance sheet
The channel is unnecessary, and destructive of at least 2000 trees and of ancient meadows and their amenity value. The channel degrades what the EA recognises as “a nationally important monument” (the existing causeway of the Old Abingdon Road) and threatens a railway embankment.
The channel will destroy 4% of all the national ‘stock’ of irreplaceable MG4 nationally-rare grassland and 100% of it in the Hinksey Meadow, which more than 5000 people have signed a petition to protect.
Removal of 40,000 lorry loads of spoil (to create the channel) moving slowly on to the A34 national trunk road would require speed restrictions of 40 mph or less and cause significant delays on an already crowded road.
We have presented to the Public Enquiry alternatives, developed by qualified engineers, which
- Though shown to be equally or more efficient in preliminary modelling have not yet been thoroughly or equally investigated by the EA on their own admission at the enquiry
- Are ready to begin immediately: they require fewer CPOs nor the preliminary work of two to three years required by the channel proposed by the EA.
With the recent floods in January, there have been renewed calls that flood alleviation measures should start as soon as possible.
The public inquiry on 15 November heard an Environment Agency witness say that construction work at the upstream end would remain `blocked' waiting for completion downstream, because downstream construction cannot start until after the replacing of a section of the A423 southern bypass, estimated to take three years.
On the other hand, on 28 November the inquiry heard that HOEG’s alternative developed in discussion with the EA could be built in parallel with the bypass work. The inspector later visited our `much more elegant solution‘ to be built on open ground. The result is that ours can be finished before the EA’s has even started. Since their’s needs two extra years for a `temporary diversion route’, even at this late date HOEG delivers flood relief to Oxford up to five years sooner.
- Cost much less public money
As the committee which scrutinizes public expenditure we wish to draw attention to the waste of public money represented in the channel part of the proposed scheme. The four alternatives presented to the EA, but unexamined by them to the same level as their own ‘preferred’ channel scheme would save at least £24 million and up to £70 million of the current estimate of the OFAS scheme of £176 million. These savings could be used to resource other equally pressing flood schemes, for example in Abingdon, Wallingford and Reading which have already been affected with higher recorded flood levels in 2024 due to the protections already in place in Oxford.
In addition, evidence presented to the Enquiry stated that the while net benefits of the OFAS channel is expected to be £11.3 million, the cost of slowing down traffic on the A34 during the excavation of the channel ( not included by the EA in their figures) would be £10.56 - £34.96 million, i.e. between 93% and 309% of the benefits that the channel is expected to bring over 100 years.
The four alternatives we presented would cost less than the channel which costs at least £24 million.
For example the EA put the proposal for a cut and cover pipe line out to only one tender which came in at five times the cost. Our witness at the enquiry stated as reported in our press release (attached) about the piped scheme:
"Alternative flood scheme proposers, Jonathan Madden and Kevin Larkin, told the Inquiry their scheme had the added benefit of being able to pump flood water away from vulnerable areas in the early stages of a flood, and not wait for a build-up. However, lawyers cross-examining EA engineers this week heard EA representatives admit that they had a “preferred scheme”, and everything else had to dovetail into that. In a reply to a question from the Inquiry Inspector, lawyers for the EA admitted: “It (OFAS) is only possible scheme to deliver the flood alleviation required for Oxford.”
Mr Madden, who lives in Woodstock, is an exploration geophysicist, and client representative for marine engineering geophysical projects, whilst Mr Larkin is a practising architect who has designed major projects, including Heathrow Airport’s control tower.
Protestors of the OFAS tried for years to liaise with the EA over their scheme but were met with a brick wall. The EA simply asked one main contractor, VBA, to estimate the cost of the alternative twin-pipe system. Their initial assessment was £86 to106-million, against the proposer’s £22-million estimate. However, Mr Madden said at no time did the EA ask for a detailed ‘specification’ on which to obtain the estimate. He also said VBA was a major project contractor, and were perhaps not experienced at handling small, three-mile-long pipeline projects.
We hope the Inquiry Chair will specifically order further quotes be obtained on all the alternatives so that a full assessment on their efficacy and cost can be made. Then, and only then, can the matter of CPOs be considered.
The inquiry has closed and the Inspector hopes to report in the Spring.
- Further details of the Twin-Pipes and Pump House scheme can be viewed atLatest News (hinkseyandosney.org)
We have earlier written to the Prime Minister following his visit to Oxford.
We stand ready to give evidence to you.
Yours sincerely
Chris Sugden (Canon Dr)
Chairman Ferry Hinksey Trust and Convenor of the Hinksey and Osney Environment Group.
North Hinksey Village, Oxford,OX2 0NA
Dr Rod Chalk, North Hinksey Village, Hinksey and Osney Environment Group
Brian Durham, New Hinksey, former City Archeologist Officer
Dr Jonathan Madden, Exploration geophysicist
Patricia Murphy, Convenor, Osney Island, Oxford Flood and Environment Group
Dr Sally Prime, North Hinksey Village
Geoffrey Sutton, Oxford City
Nick Wedd, North Hinksey Village, Hinksey and Osney Environment Group
Professor Jocelyn Wogan-Browne Osney island, Oxford Flood and Environment Group
Note: Receipt of emailed letter acknowledged February 5.