DEFRA Room 309, Eastbury House

30-34 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TL

                                                                                    11 November 2001

 

Dear Sir

Ref: LDC 2380 - Jubilee River proposal

I am writing to record my concerns, indeed objections in respect of the adoption of the name Jubilee River to the newly created man-made channel between Maidenhead and Datchet.

To use the word River is at best a gross exaggeration, and at worst an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act.  This channel is a flood relief channel and should be identified as such.  The channel is not a natural feature that has developed over many decades or centuries.  The channel is also not navigable.  Any water flow through the channel is controlled, and indeed there may be times in the future when there is no flow through the channel.  How can this possibly be called a river?

To use the word Jubilee is just opportunistic.  Many millions of £'s of taxpayers' money was used to fund this scheme.  The channel may be an engineering marvel, designed to reduce the risk of flooding in Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton, but it has been accepted that the channel may cause floodwater to arrive in Datchet earlier, to rise more quickly, and to finish at a higher level.  What happens if such an event occurs, and the Jubilee River is found to be the cause?

Finally, if and when the maps are amended, can you please ensure that the parish boundary from the Myrke to Black Potts (where the channel sweeps around into Datchet) is not relocated, thus reducing the area of Datchet Parish.

Yours faithfully

Ewan Larcombe