You are here: Jubilee River Home Page > LTFRMS > Transcript of MWEFAS circular - May 1992 > How to contact me
Return to Jubilee River story
Original DPC 1992 leaflet
Transcript of third MWEFAS circular
- Published by Datchet Parish Council -
- and delivered to all Datchet Households in May 1992
Datchet Parish Council - May 1992 (with DPC logo)
STOP PRESS IT HAS JUST BEEN ANNOUNCED THAT THE PUBLIC ENQUIRY CALLED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WILL OPEN AT SHIRE HALL, READING ON TUESDAY 20TH OCTOBER.
FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL – OBJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION. On two occasions last year Datchet Parish Council circulated the village to inform and seek the views of parishioners. We received nearly 250 letters in response and the following are the principle material objections and detail why Datchet Parish Council are opposed to the Flood Relief Channel as currently designed.
1) The proposed scheme is neither necessary nor justified. Development is, has been and will continue to be permitted on the flood plain with the risk of flooding accepted by both the authorities and the purchasers of the residential properties. In addition, further development is not increased justification for the proposed scheme.
2) The scheme is too big and there are better value for money solutions.
3) In years of low precipitation, the channel may become a mosquito infested swamp, liable to blue/green algal and botulism. The pollution will be a health and safety hazard.
4) There is the possibility of adverse effects downstream.
a) Areas downstream could be subjected to an increased risk of flood, increased severity of flood and a longer period of flood.
b) When the channel – poisoned as in ‘3’ above – ultimately flows into the Thames, it is liable to contaminate the Datchet abstraction point endangering Public Health.
5) The confluence of the proposed scheme with the Thames should be further downstream – at a point where the river has sufficient capacity to contain the combined flows.
6) With regard to Datchet and the other downstream Parishes, the NRA have failed to meet the requirements of the EIA Directive of the EEC regarding the need for consultation.
7) Datchet has not been supplied with the relevant documentation. Between the NRA, the RBW&M and BCC, the only meaningful document we received prior to February 1992 was the Planning Application Brochure.
8) The original cost/benefit calculations have changed.
9) The scheme is a minerals application dressed up to look like a flood relief scheme with fringe benefits.
10) Some properties in Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury still have no mains drainage.
11) There will be much nuisance and disruption during building.
12) Who can guarantee the scheme will work?
13) The question of who would pay compensation for damage caused as a result of
the implementation of the scheme has not been addressed.
14) Implementation of the scheme could affect property values and insurance costs.
15) No matter what assurances are given about maintaining the proposed scheme, the Authorities performance regarding the maintenance of existing drainage schemes is on record.
16) Greenbelt floodplain that is no longer at risk of flooding would become exposed to increased development pressures.
17) The adverse effects of the scheme would be felt forever.
18) There are possible unknown long-term effects on the aquifer.