Correspondence between Dr Rod Chalk of HOEG, an Oxford Mail/Times journalist and the OFAS Scheme
Letter to Oxford Mail and Times reporter Madeleine Evans 29 May
Dear Maddy,
Allow me to correct your recent article. OFAS does not protect 160,000 thousand homes – nearly all of Oxford’s 60,000 houses sit well above the flood plain and are at no risk of flooding. OFAS protects just over 1000 homes built on the flood plain at a cost of £176,000 per house.
Kind regards,
Rod Chalk, PhD
Hinksey and Osney Environmental Group
Reply from Madeleine Evans May 30
Dear Rod,
Many thanks for your email and for drawing my attention to this. My article should have read 160,000 residents, not homes, to accurately reflect information I was given by the environment agency.
I have now amended the article and I hope this satisfies your query.
Kind regards,
Maddy
Madeleine Evans
To Madeleine Evans from Rod Chalk
Dear Maddy,
The information given to you by the Environment Agency is incorrect. OFAS does not prevent flooding for all of Oxford’s residents, as claimed in their press release. As the name says it a flood alleviation scheme, not a flood prevention scheme. This means that many houses will still be at significant risk of flooding even after the scheme has been delivered. I think you will agree with me that the EA’s claim about 160,000 residents is pure PR “spin” – after all its houses and businesses that flood, not people. Residents of Central, North and East Oxford (the bulk of the city) are entirely unaffected.
Kind regards,
Rod
To The Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme from Rod Chalk June 17
I have a question to the Environment Agency and I would like an answer please.
Does the Environment Agency intend to continue to give out misleading and (as is the case in my letter to Madeleine Evans ( above)) entirely false information to the press and the public of Oxford regarding the environmental impact, costs and economic benefits for the scheme?
From the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme to Rod Chalk June 25
Dear Rod Chalk,
Thank you for your enquiry of Tuesday 17 June 2025 regarding a recent article about the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme in the Oxford Mail.
We understand your frustration at the misquote of our press release announcing the confirmation of our Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO). It is important that the public receive accurate information, and we are committed to ensuring this in all of our communications.
Our press release states that “all homes, businesses, and crucial infrastructure in Oxford at risk of flooding from the River Thames will be better protected” by the scheme. The figure of 160,000 in the press release refers not to the number of properties or residents that will be protected, but instead to the number of residents who “will gain vital reassurance from the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme in the face of our changing climate.”
Unfortunately, the Oxford Mail article does not accurately reflect this.
Please find attached a copy of the press release for your information. We would also like highlight our new Engagement HQ webpage, which contains detailed information about the scheme and will feature regular updates about our progress. You can find the site here: Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme | Engage Environment Agency.
Kind regards,
Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme project team
To the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme, June 25 from Dr Rod Chalk
Dear Oxford Scheme Team,
Thank you for your response. However, I must respectfully disagree with the claim in your press release that 160,000 residents “will gain vital reassurance” from the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme.
Residents of East Oxford — an area outside the floodplain — will experience no direct benefit from the scheme. The implication that the entire city population stands to gain materially from the project is highly misleading. If reassurance is the measure of success, similar logic could be applied to all of Oxfordshire or even the UK — which clearly would be an exaggeration.
More importantly, your press release blurs the distinction between actual flood protection and generalised public sentiment. The fact remains: the scheme protects just over 1,000 homes — a fraction of Oxford’s housing stock — at a significant cost. This distinction matters, especially when public trust and funding are involved.
I also note that you have not answered my original question:
Does the Environment Agency intend to continue issuing statements to the press and public that overstate the environmental, economic, and protective benefits of the scheme?
I would appreciate a clear response to this.
Kind regards,
Rod Chalk, PhD
Hinksey and Osney Environmental Group