Amended 16/12/2010 You are here: Jubilee River Home
Page > Jubilee River - key facts
> The Jubilee River Story >
How to contact me >
Jubilee River guided tours
NEXT PAGE >
ARCHIVE INDEX >
The Jubilee River story - The Datchet Parish Council view -
Prior to February 1992 there was no consultation with Datchet
Parish Council because the proposed channel did not come into the Parish, merely
ran along the boundary.
The following document was distributed to all Datchet households
in May 1992. You can find a word-processed copy
Below: Transcript of third MWEFAS circular
- Published by Datchet Parish Council - and delivered to all Datchet Households in
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
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
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
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.
Original DPC 1992 leaflet