{"id":763,"date":"2024-01-29T15:35:18","date_gmt":"2024-01-29T15:35:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/?p=763"},"modified":"2024-01-29T15:43:38","modified_gmt":"2024-01-29T15:43:38","slug":"wraysbury-presentation-30-1-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/2024\/01\/29\/wraysbury-presentation-30-1-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Wraysbury – presentation 30-1-2024"},"content":{"rendered":"

STATEMENT ON FLOODING \u2013 PREPARED FOR WRAYSBURY VILLAGE HALL \u2013 PUBLISHED ONLINE – FROM EWAN LARCOMBE \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a029`-1-2024<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Draft version 5 \u2013 full \u2013 for publication complete with links –\u00a0\u00a0 29-01-2024<\/strong><\/p>\n

Good evening.\u00a0 In some ways we are lucky.\u00a0 The water is receding now but ten years ago we flooded twice and when we flood this hall is inaccessible.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

This is a personal statement that will be published shortly – <\/strong>complete with some web links direct to supporting documents.\u00a0 I am reading this in the hope of avoiding \u2018Code of Conduct\u2019 complaints and threats of legal proceedings. <\/strong><\/p>\n

This statement briefly covers the history of Thames flooding, the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton Flood Alleviation Scheme, the River Thames Scheme and the Datchet to Hythe End Flood Improvement Measures.\u00a0 This statement refers to \u2018partnership funding\u2019 and political issues and finishes with \u2018Where do we go from here?\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

I am a Parish and a Borough Councillor with my own political party.\u00a0 \u00a0I am also appointed to the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee that looks after the Thames Catchment budget of well in excess of \u00a3100m per year.\u00a0 The purpose of the RFCC is to oversee, to scrutinise and if necessary challenge flood defence spending.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have 23 relatives in this village, 17 in Datchet and 4 others in RBWM \u2013 a total of 44.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A BIT OF RECENT HISTORY<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1926 the Thames Conservancy knew they had a flooding problem.\u00a0 Their solution consisted of widening the river in places, raising the banks and in providing 17 cuts or relief channels.\u00a0 Sixteen main bridges and over one hundred minor bridges would have to be demolished and rebuilt.\u00a0 Estimated total cost in 1926 = \u00a39m.\u00a0 It did not happen.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thames Valley flood prevention (1926) (flooding.london)<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

I assisted with the rising ground water problem here in Wraysbury in the early 1980\u2019s and provided evidence on the Wraysbury Railway Station Bridge collapse (caused by flood water) in 1988. \u00a0I joined Wraysbury Parish Council in 2015.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have now been involved with four flood events here this century.\u00a0 I would label this event as \u2018ordinary\u2019 i.e. I think a 5% or 1:20 year return probability is about right.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

In my opinion the probability of flooding here is ever-increasing.\u00a0 As a distant and remote outpost of RBWM \u2013 when it comes to land drainage infrastructure maintenance and improvement – we have been abandoned and repeatedly failed by the authorities for decades.\u00a0 \u00a0If we had a flood event similar in circumstances to 1947 I expect that The George car park and almost the entire length of Windsor Road would be totally inundated. \u00a0Just ask the Environment Agency for the modelled maximum flood level here in Wraysbury in the case of a 1947 style event.<\/strong><\/p>\n

MAIDENHEAD, WINDSOR AND ETON FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEME<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Please remember that Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton have already benefitted from MWEFAS since 2002 at little or no cost to RBWM.\u00a0 It should be noted that any downstream consultation on MWEFAS prior to the 1992 Planning Inquiry at Reading was limited and verging on non-existent. \u00a0Datchet was only included because the channel was pushed across the Parish boundary.\u00a0 Mr Perret and Mr Thompson recognised the possible risks and Datchet Parish Council then took appropriate action.<\/strong><\/p>\n

THE 1992 PLANNING INQUIRY REPORT<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The 1992 MWEFAS Planning Inquiry Inspector\u2019s Report to the Minister noted that \u2018It would be very embarrassing to all concerned if the intended discharge capacity of the FRC was not achieved.\u2019 \u00a0\u2018Thus the hydraulic computations are particularly important and are dominant issues\u2019.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is the largest fluvial flood alleviation scheme ever to be carried out in the Thames region, and any deficiency in capacity would bring wide-spread \u2013 and justified \u2013 criticism.\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

It would be the largest man-made river to be created in the UK with full regard to the latest policies regarding environmental enhancements.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The question of the flow capacity likely to be obtained is not an issue that can be clouded over in the hope that design tolerances could later explain away any deficiency.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 It is my firm view that there is no room for retaining optimistic assumptions in the hydraulic design:\u00a0 in view of the novelty and scale of environmental enhancements proposed, some conservatism, some consideration of tolerances on assumptions is necessary.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Assessor: P Ackers – M Sc(Eng) FCGI FICE MIWEM MASCE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992 Inquiry Report (flooding.london)<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

On first use in January 2003, operation of the world-class, award winning Jubilee River dumped flood water onto undefended villages downstream.\u00a0\u00a0 At only 2\/3rds capacity \u2013 many channel structures suffered significant damage and generated very large repair bills.\u00a0 \u00a0The project designers shut up shop immediately and a \u00a32.75m out-of-court settlement for sub-standard design and construction was agreed in 2006.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a32.75m settlement (flooding.london)<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Even today new issues are appearing (for example – the footbridge problems).<\/strong><\/p>\n

Berry Hill Footbridge Repair Cost \u00a3334,000 – DHWNEWS<\/span><\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

AS FOR JUBILEE RIVER CAPACITY AND STRUCTURAL ISSUES<\/u><\/strong>?<\/strong><\/p>\n

My understanding is that the Jubilee River designed capacity was 215 cumecs. \u00a0Actual capacity = 180 cumecs max. \u00a0The Environment Agency never explained or apologised for the many structural problems or the failure to achieve the capacity design standards.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even the EA Board was involved in the cover-up!\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The question was \u2018Do we really want to highlight these in public\u2019?<\/strong><\/p>\n

EA Board cover-up (flooding.london)<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

PARLIAMENT<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Professor Donald Knight submitted evidence to the House of Commons EFRA Committee as <\/strong>follows:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Extract from\u00a0memorandum submitted by Professor Donald Knight (FL 85)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Comments on the recent floods (Summer, 2007)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

(vii) My last comment on the EA is one that possibly illustrates the lack of hydraulics knowledge. In my last letter to Reg Purnell (27\/07\/05), I set out 5 issues that I thought were important concerning the new R&D arrangements. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Regarding one issue I said \u201cAs you are aware, I am still somewhat concerned about the capability of some of the senior management within the Environment Agency in this respect, particularly when dealing with technical fluid flow issues.\u00a0<\/strong>You have to look no further than the Jubilee channel as a<\/strong> monument to the \u201cskills shortage\u201d within the EA. \u00a0A new \u00a390 million channel takes only 2\/3 of its design<\/strong> flow\u2014how basic can you get?<\/strong>\u00a0Especially when the EA has a new \u201cConveyance Estimation System\u201d, developed through a \u00a30.5million R&D managed programme, and then \u201claunched\u201d in June 2004. But it gets even worse, as, in another criticism of the EA, I have to say that the CES software is still not available to anybody within the Agency or by consultants who want it, due to EA \u201cprocedures\u2019\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Knight and EFRA Committee (flooding.london)<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Then came multiple denials of culpability accompanied by local promises of action.\u00a0 The Minister at that time – Elliot Morley \u2013 told the House of Commons that it was not the Jubilee River that caused the flooding, that we could not have an inquiry and finally he demanded that we stop playing \u2018the blame game\u2019.\u00a0 It is interesting to note that while the EA attempted to regain public trust and confidence – the disgraced Elliot Morley ended up in prison some years later for fiddling his expenses.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ministerial denial (flooding.london)<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Mar 2003 (pt 30) (parliament.uk)<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Elliot Morley (flooding.london)<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Morley pleads guilty (flooding.london)<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This country and the legislation moved on.\u00a0 We had the 2004 Mechanisms of Flooding Report – then extraordinary flooding in July 2007 followed by the Pitt Review, the Flood Risk Regulations, the Floods and Water Management Act 2010 and the introduction of the \u2018Partnership Funding\u2019 policy in 2011.<\/strong><\/p>\n

THE PARTNERSHIP FUNDING POLICY PROBLEM<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

After nine years and all the promises – the \u2018partnership funding\u2019 policy (2011) was used in July 2020 by RBWM, the EA and Surrey County Council to remove Channel One (our channel) from the River Thames Scheme without consultation or notice.\u00a0 The partnership funding problem was recognised in mid-2017.<\/strong><\/p>\n

https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/ea-sponsoring-group-meeting-22-6-2017\/<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

My assertion is that the requirement for a \u00a353m partnership funding contribution from RBWM was never revealed by SCC, RBWM or the EA.\u00a0 Furthermore the topic (the \u00a353m partnership funding contribution) was never properly considered or determined by RBWM.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

WHAT THEN<\/u><\/strong>?\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Wraysbury quickly achieved the 1,500 petition names required to have the RTS issue debated by RBWM Council \u2013 but the issue was fudged by the administration at the meeting.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Then the official RBWM response to a \u2018Letter Before Action\u2019 was simply \u2018six months have passed, you are out of time for a Judicial Review.\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

My view is that the \u2018partnership funding\u2019 policy was incorrectly applied in order to remove a significant segment of an advanced project where the development costs had already been incurred.\u00a0 These are sunk costs totalling many \u00a3millions that cannot be recovered.\u00a0 Furthermore you may be interested (maybe even horrified and appalled) to know that the EA has spent over \u00a370m to date on the RTS project over the last 15 years.<\/strong><\/p>\n

https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/2023\/10\/24\/river-thames-scheme-flood-alleviation-project-now-at-risk\/<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

You have paid the wages of and supported people who do not keep their promises and who hide the truth.\u00a0 You are not getting value for money.\u00a0 Yet here we go again.\u00a0 In my opinion the new Datchet to Hythe End Flood Improvement Measures project proposal is sub-standard (in terms of both quality and timing) and consequently an unacceptable replacement for the original River Thames Scheme Channel One.<\/strong><\/p>\n

THE BIGGER PICTURE<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Flooding is a complex, worldwide, geopolitical, environmental and economic problem that can only get worse here while the authorities have responsibility and power without any corresponding duty to act and\/or accountability.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The authorities rely on flood events to be sporadic in timing, in location and magnitude.\u00a0 They rely on us \u2013 the flood victims – giving a disjointed, informal, parochial response that they can easily repel with their sophisticated propaganda and disinformation machines.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here are some YouTube reminders of our 2014 flood events<\/strong><\/p>\n

Philip Hammond and Sue Burrows – https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=GgW6-x8SDvQ<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Newsnight from The George – https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=mZEYzBxKRds&t=14s<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

THE POLITICS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

On the political front line over twenty years ago (just after the 2003 flood event) the Thames Awash campaign resulted in the two Conservative RBWM Ward Councillors failing to retain their seats at the local elections. \u00a0More recently Conservative Borough Councillors are an increasingly rare breed in this area – as witnessed by last year\u2019s election results.<\/strong><\/p>\n

What has not changed is the reluctance of authorities to even hear negative feedback let alone consider it.\u00a0 This stifles the opportunity for reflection and is a permanent and self-inflicted barrier to improvement.\u00a0 I can assure you that both the \u2018fade factor\u2019 and \u2018corporate amnesia\u2019 are alive and well.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today we live in a new digital world where knowledge and power has shifted.\u00a0 \u00a0The Horizon Post Office Scandal is a good example.\u00a0 Mr Bates has done well and set new standards.\u00a0 He identified and exposed a long-term conspiracy between the authorities \u2013 the purpose being to avoid reputational harm.\u00a0 Mr Bates has shown us just what \u2018the little people\u2019 are capable of when they get organised, are focussed and persistent.\u00a0 Now we have to wait a little longer. \u00a0The corporate accountability for the Horizon Scandal will be shared around the responsible individuals.<\/strong><\/p>\n

While we wait for the Horizon Report \u2013 may I be so bold as to suggest that these \u2018cultural shortcomings\u2019 are systemic and may be apparent elsewhere?<\/strong><\/p>\n

SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE<\/u><\/strong>?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The three Parish Councils have already confirmed that they will object to the NSIP DCO on the River Thames Scheme.\u00a0 The mandatory pre-application consultation opened on 22\/1\/2024 for six weeks but Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury have been omitted from this consultation.\u00a0 We received a letter recently but there are no arrangements for the provision of consultation literature in the libraries and no local events being held in the village halls.\u00a0 You have to wonder whether the EA really wants our responses to their consultation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

SO WHAT ARE WE OBJECTING TO<\/u><\/strong>?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The proposed River Thames Scheme now consists of two new channels (not three), three sets of weir improvements and some channel works.\u00a0 Channel One was removed from the original project in July 2020.\u00a0\u00a0 The project was supposed to extend the benefits of the Jubilee River further on downstream Teddington but in my opinion the project has now lost its connectivity, continuity and coherence with the upstream FAS.\u00a0 As for the forecast cost of this project \u2013 please ask the EA.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In my opinion the grossly underfunded DHEFIM project will be of insufficient capacity and running far behind the RTS project timescales.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP NOW<\/u><\/strong>?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I ask all you \u2018little people\u2019 to please work together and highlight the decades of injustice and inequality here.\u00a0 You can do that today by adding your names to the RBWM \u2018practice flood defence equality\u2019 petition which includes the Wraysbury Drain problem.\u00a0 This petition is for RBWM residents only.<\/strong><\/p>\n

https:\/\/rbwm.moderngov.co.uk\/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=2183&RPID=11378961&HPID=11378961<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

WRAYSBURY DRAIN<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Wraysbury Drain dating back to before 1799 is no longer fit for purpose and\u00a0needs improved protection.\u00a0 RBWM as designated LLFA is the responsible authority for ordinary watercourses but their lack of action over many years despite repeated requests is a matter of record.\u00a0 My view is that Wraysbury Parish Council should manage (or maybe even facilitate) the creation of a new and formal local group called \u2018the Friends of Wraysbury Drain\u2019.\u00a0 \u00a0The group would maintain a map of the watercourse, a register of the riparian owner locations and contact details.\u00a0 The group would monitor channel condition, flows, levels and water quality, identify\/raise issues as required and report to WPC at agreed intervals.<\/strong><\/p>\n

RTS CONSULTATION<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Please also make the time to respond to the River Thames Scheme consultation.\u00a0 You only have this one opportunity available until 4th<\/sup> March 2024 to submit your views.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The EA scrapped Channel One from the RTS project and blamed RBWM.\u00a0 The EA then chose to request NSIP designation and a DCO.\u00a0 In fact the Planning Inspectorate is an authority that may take a very different view when they evaluate the RTS project.\u00a0 Finally \u2013 my personal view is \u2013 we have been unrepresented and quiet for too long \u2013 we should scrap RTS and reinstate Main River dredging now.<\/strong><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.riverthamesscheme.org.uk\/consultation<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Thank you<\/strong><\/p>\n

END<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

STATEMENT ON FLOODING \u2013 PREPARED FOR WRAYSBURY VILLAGE HALL \u2013 PUBLISHED ONLINE – FROM EWAN LARCOMBE \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a029`-1-2024\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Draft version 5 \u2013 full \u2013 for publication complete with links –\u00a0\u00a0 29-01-2024 Good evening.\u00a0 In some ways we are lucky.\u00a0 The water is receding now but ten years ago we flooded twice and when we flood this ….  Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/763"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=763"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/763\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":765,"href":"https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/763\/revisions\/765"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flooding.london\/rts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}