Issued by the Ferry Hinksey Trust
Press Release
For Immediate Release
12 February 2024
OXFORD’S FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEME REFERRED TO THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE FOR INVESTIGATION
OXFORD’S controversial Flood Alleviation Scheme (OFAS), designed by the Environment Agency (EA), could be the subject of a National Audit Office (NAO) investigation following a letter from local campaigners claiming £70 million could be saved from the project’s £176-million budget.
Campaigners say the £70 million ‘overspend’ could be better used in providing new flood alleviation schemes in Abingdon, Wallingford and Reading, after recent bad weather showed these areas vulnerable to major flooding, and damage to local residents and businesses.
The OFAS, which has recently been criticized at a Public Enquiry for its use of nearly 1,000 Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO) which were claimed to be illegal as viable alternatives exist which the EA admitted it had not explored thoroughly and which would drastically reduce the number of CPOs. The Enquiry Inspector is due to send her report to the Environment Secretary shortly, and Steve Barclay MP will announce his decision in the Spring. However, with growing opposition to the EA’s plans, the National Audit Office should now investigate how the EA is about to use public funds - and could even stop the works until they are convinced the scheme is ‘value for money’.
A letter this week to the NAO by Canon Dr Chris Sugden, Chair of the Ferry Hinksey Trust, along with campaigning local environmentalists, claims that the current scheme is “poorly conceived, wastes public money, cannot respond to future climate change, causes huge environmental destruction - not on the EA balance sheet, removes 10 hectares of flood storage and, is objected to by 93% of local people.”
Canon Sugden explained in the letter: "As the body 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 are 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 itself, which costs at least £24 million."
Commenting on the letter, Canon Sugden said: "The National Audit Office often investigates public bodies and projects once the money has been spent or, when those planned by Government are starting to go highly over budget. We believe we have demonstrated to the Public Enquiry that the EA has simply chosen an ‘off the shelf’ scheme they have used elsewhere and obtained quotes from their usual contractors without giving the same weight and investigation to viable alternatives.
"At the Enquiry, the EA admitted it had not looked into our alternatives, put forward by highly qualified and experienced practitioners in the flood field, and as such, not only are their plans for CPOs seriously under question, so is their stewardship of public funds. If a group of residents with expertise in these matters find nearly 40% savings on just one project, it begs the question, 'how much of the EA’s £1,897-million expenditure for the year ending March 2023 could have been saved?'. [1]
“We believe it is in the public interest for the National Audit Office to demand to see the proposed OFAS expenditure, and to ask searching questions why the EA has not looked at alternatives to the scheme which have the same, if not better efficacy and save the public purse £70 million. At a time when the public purse is stretched, and citizens are finding the cost of living very high, the NAO has a duty to investigate.”
Campaigners say they submitted detailed alternatives to the EA in the years leading up to the scheme’s launch, but these were ignored or dismissed. Their rejection of CPOs served on the Ferry Hinksey Trust and others resulted in a Public Enquiry, which took place at the Kings Centre, Osney Mead from mid November 2023, closing at the end of January.
Campaigners believe an Investigation by the NAO will leave the EA exposed to a lack of care with public funds and will show they short-circuited steps to announce a properly analysed scheme, because of urgency from the increasing effects of climate change on the UK’s weather, which are causing more localised flooding.
- The full text of the letter and signatories, plus full detail of the cost-saving alternatives to the OFAS can be viewed at www.hinkseyandosney.org
ENDS
For further information/Interview:
Canon Chris Sugden 07808 297043 csugden@ocrpl.org
(Chair – FHT)
Paul Eddy 07923 653781 paul@pauleddy.uk
(Public Relations Consultant to FHT)
Editor’s Notes:
[1] The Audited Accounts for the EA for the year ending March 2023, can be viewed at: