Abingdon Floods in The House of Commons

Debate on Abingdon Floods
Congratulations to Layla Moran, our local MP, for securing a debate in the House of Commons last Thursday on the decision to mothball the River Ock flood storage scheme.

In 2007 more than 400 homes were flooded by the River Ock. The proposed flood storage scheme would have been funded by a partnership of the Vale of White Horse District Council, Oxfordshire County Council and the Thames regional flood and coastal committee.
Debate on Abingdon Floods
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) said “…The Environment Agency initially estimated that the scheme would cost £5 million, but realised more recently that the true cost was closer to double that ….”

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey), replied “The original cost of about £5.2 million was the starting point, but the agency then undertook additional modelling and ground investigations, which allowed it to produce the more detailed outline designs for the flood storage area. The cost increasing to £10 million is due not to one specific issue, but rather to a number of activities. For example, the reservoir needs to be compliant with the Reservoirs Act 1975 due to its size, resulting in the need for additional safety measures such as safe access routes for operational staff and maintenance vehicles. After appraisal, the cost has been estimated at about £10 million”

Dr Thérèse Coffey went on to say

“Unfortunately, it was found that this proposal had a negative cost-benefit ratio and so was not eligible for any support at all from the £2.6 billion of central Government funding that has been made available over six years.

The cost-benefit ratio works out the cost of a scheme against its benefit (how much damage it will prevent financially during a given time scale).

The next step to prevent further Abingdon Floods on the scale of 2007 must be to look for ways of making the scheme cheaper (whether redesign or challenging it is a reservoir), or see if the partnership can find more money.
Debate on Abingdon Floods
The full debate can be read at hansard.parliament.uk. It also can be watched on parliamentlive.tv

14 thoughts on “Abingdon Floods in The House of Commons

  1. ppjs

    A negative cost benefit?

    Surely, that’s abolishing the Probation Service and then having to reintroduce it. Or privatising the Health Service and then discovering that the resulting lack of co-ordination means that it cannot function as it should. Or cutting local government budgets and then wondering why social care (from cradle to grave) is breaking down.

    £8million is, these days, peanuts. Who’s kidding who? [I know, “Who’s kidding whom?”] At least the debate has exposed another example of the Westminster/Whitehall village mindset.

    Reply
  2. Julian Annells

    Looks as though it was busy! Layla telling one other member! Still I’m sure the rest of the swamp were out sorting Brexit or something.

    Reply
  3. Horsesmouth

    There’s no need for any of that nonsense if the Thames was regularly dredged like it used to be pre EU directive against dredging, as for negative coatings, who do you think is paying for all the saplings being planted on flood planes in the hope they’ll eventually “drink” up any flooding? The EA of course, which is full of wet behind the ears just out of college ningcompoops!
    Maintain the Thames properly and enforce the Riparian Rites act which makes adjoining land owners responsibil for “their” river bank and clear it of fallen trees and debris!

    Reply
  4. Janet

    The E U has a flood defences budget. Even though we had floods covering Somerset we could not qualify to have E U flood aid. Horsesmouth. When I moved to Abingdon in the 60’s the Thames at Abingdon was regularly dredged.

    Reply
  5. Badger

    Cynical I know but I can’t help but think there’s a degree of bias regarding the cancellation of this scheme related to our locally elected political party… a message from the Conservative Party… Lib Dem now eh? welcome to the third world… and the money goes elsewhere.

    Reply
  6. Horsesmouth

    Funny you should say that badger I seem to remember when the Tories took over from the last Lib/Dems they discovered the draft plan had expired!

    Reply
  7. Horsesmouth

    Oh, sorry Janet yes there was a full time dredging team usually stationed at Iffley lock, they worked from oxford to Wallingford all the time, it’s really isn’t rocket science you know? Take the stretch from Radley Boat house to Sandford Lock, where salters steamers come down at 12 notts everyday they’ve washed the bank completely away on the tow path side, the upshotifthst is the soil that’s been eroded is now silting up the river, and Radley college chase boats are not helping – flat out causing massive wash everday.

    Reply
  8. Jutta Weber

    This is about the River Ock, not the Thames and I do wonder why they talk about a reservoir here. Soon e will be promised a flood scheme involving the reoccurring plans of the huge reservoir between the Steventon, Marcham and the Hanneys…

    Reply
  9. Daniel

    Why don’t we just have a reservoir built in Steventon, cos that’ll then pay for the flood defences?

    Reply
  10. Horsesmouth

    Julia the thinking behind the Ock flooding is because at the same time the Ock reaches capacity so does the Thames and the upshot of that is the Ock backs up and floods, in short of you increase the capacity of the Thames ( by dredging and good maintenance) you increase/ improve the flow of the Ock.
    Let’s not forget too that where Tesco, the A34, the allotments and all the land south of the road to Marcham was once flood plane, now it’s gone! So much for consideried planning Eh?

    Reply
  11. Geoff Bailey

    Save London and the lower Thames and to hell with the upper reaches. Sound London politics.

    Reply
  12. ppjs

    Horsesmouth:
    When the question of river maintenance was raised at the recent meeting called by the MP, there were diametrically opposed views expressed by members of the public on dredging. In response, the panel said that they had to balance a number of different issues. I understand your frustration; however, the explanation did not sound to me like a lack of concern, but something slightly more complex. I could be wrong.

    I agree that some users seem to ignore their action in eroding the bank and that there appears to be little enforcement.
    I think that we are still in the post-2008 depression and that public finances will continue to be squeezed for some time yet.

    It’s very depressing – especially for those who find themselves unable to provide the basics in the communities we elect them to serve.

    Geoff:
    At the same meeting the panel also commented that, whatever action they took to deal with flood defences and river conservation ,they were obliged by law not make matters worse for those downstream – and that this applied to action upstream from Abingdon. They could not do anything in Oxford that would make things worse for us in Abingdon.

    I don’t think that that sounds like “Save London and the lower Thames and to hell with the upper reaches”. I could be wrong.

    Reply
  13. Horsesmouth

    PPJS, sorry but you are wrong ! The EA came up with a similar “flood prevention” scheme down stream near Windsor ( think it may be near Wrasbury?) where-by they put extra channels in to elevate flooding in one location ( aka oxford) only to speed up the flow downstream and flood places that had never been flooded before! Google it?

    Reply
  14. pjh64

    Everyone in the chamber giving Layla a miss in case she gets cross, lashes out, and gives someone a slap!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.