Written evidence from Ewan Larcombe, leader of the National Flood Prevention Party (FFP 78)

 

1)              Although I am an elected member of both Datchet and Wraysbury Parish Councils this evidence is submitted by me and not on behalf of either Parish Council.  I am the leader of the National Flood Prevention Party.  I am aged 65 and have lived in this area for my whole life. I was affected by flooding once in 2003 and twice in 2014.  Three of my brothers and one of my sisters (all living in Wraysbury) were flooded to varying degrees on those same occasions.

 

2)              Irrespective of evidence on global warming and/or climate change it is a fact that extended periods of intense precipitation cause flooding and consequential harm.  The occurrence is sporadic in terms of both timing and geographical distribution but flooding is only the symptom of a problem.  Today we cannot influence the climate but in my opinion it is the duty of the Government to protect the people.

 

3)              My late parents were affected by River Thames flooding in 1947 (before I was born).  I was first involved in groundwater level issues in Wraysbury in 1984 prior to the Wraysbury Station railway bridge collapse (caused by flooding) in 1988. 

 

4)              As Chairman of Datchet Parish Council at the time I submitted evidence at the 1992 Planning Inquiry into the Maidenhead, Windsor & Eton Flood Alleviation Scheme (MWEFAS).  Datchet now has the confluence of the River Thames and Jubilee River within the parish.

 

5)              The main element of the £110m MWEFAS project was the Jubilee River.

On first use (at only 2/3rds of its design capacity) in late 2002 and early 2003 almost every structure was damaged.  Repairs cost about £5m and (some years later) the EA agreed on a £2.75m out-of-court settlement for sub-standard design and construction.

Today the Jubilee River is unable to convey its design capacity of 215 cumecs.  Thus the original cost/benefit calculations have not been achieved.  The Jubilee River channel has a maximum capacity of 180 cumecs and the River Thames capacity is ever-reducing due to a combination of bed-rise and flood arch obstruction while planning and development is accelerating.  In my opinion the future looks bleak.


6)              With reference to the 1992 MWEFAS Planning Inquiry the Assessor reported as follows (his words with my red highlighting)

Extract from 1992 Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton Flood Alleviation Scheme Public Inquiry - Report to Minister.

15.  Further aspects of hydraulic performance

15.1. It would be very embarrassing to all concerned if the intended discharge capacity of the FRC was not achieved.  Thus the hydraulic computations are particularly important, and in this context the sensitivity of the channel to the roughness coefficients used and the method of dealing with two-stage channels implicit in the modelling are dominant issues.

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 – and justified – criticism.  It would be the largest man-made river to be created in the UK with full regard to the latest policies regarding environmental enhancements.

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.  It is my firm view that there is no room for retaining optimistic assumptions in the hydraulic design:  in view of the novelty and scale of environmental enhancements proposed, some conservatism, some consideration of tolerances on assumptions is necessary.

Assessor: P Ackers - M Sc(Eng) FCGI FICE MIWEM MASCE

 

7)              So who took any notice of the Inspector’s 1992 Report?  Not the Minister, not the NRA, not the EA and certainly not the designers or contractors.  They all just ploughed on and built a sub-standard flood asset.

 

8)              The EA is an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by DEFRA. The EA has no legal duty to maintain or improve conveyance capacity.  I am concerned that when things go wrong with flood assets (particularly new ones) nobody is responsible, there is no accountability, no admission of wrongdoing, no apology and no prompt independent investigation/report.

 

 

9)              To make matters worse the undefended villages downstream of Windsor were flooded in January 2003.  This led to the development of what is now called the ‘River Thames Scheme – Datchet to Teddington’.  This is a £302m project at 2009 prices - due to commence in 2020 (subject to funding) with completion scheduled for 2025.

 

 

10)              How can we possibly do better if we do not learn?  We simply cannot learn - there is no opportunity for reflection because the mistakes of the past are suppressed.

 

11)              I accept that the stage/discharge characteristics of a channel may change over time but I am concerned that the Environment Agency has no legal duty to maintain and/or improve the conveyance capacity of the designated main rivers that are their responsibility.  Despite the warnings given and recorded at the 1992 Inquiry the Environment Agency built a sub-standard scheme.  In my opinion we are now on course to repeat the mistakes of the past on the River Thames Scheme.

 

 

Recommendations

 

1)                Consider holding a Royal Commission on Land Drainage – the last one was held in 1927.  Apart from about 90 years since the last one – with the digital revolution established now would be an appropriate time to accumulate, record and evaluate evidence from nationwide.

 

2)              The solutions to existing flooding problems can only be resolved using a catchment based multi-agency approach.  Pressure for development on flood plain continues while corresponding maintenance/improvements to land drainage just does not happen. By all means plant trees in the upper catchment and retain water where possible but once the water is in the main channel – the channel requires sufficient capacity - and precipitation on super-saturated ground takes us into a new ball game.

 

3)               The Environment Agency is publicly funded.  It must be honest, transparent and accountable for actions/inactions.  When things go wrong, action should be taken against responsible individuals.

 

4)               In my opinion The River Thames Scheme (Datchet to Teddington) is a fundamentally flawed answer to flooding problem.  Three new parallel channels, one widened channel and some weir improvements are planned.  Completion is still ten years (and maybe £1bn) away.  There are improvements that could be made now to improve River Thames conveyance capacity.  In my opinion flood arch re-commissioning, dredging, channel reprofiling and river level adjustment need proper consideration. 

 

5)              The EA repeatedly claims ‘unprecedented rainfall’ and ‘record river levels’.  I am concerned that the ultimate conveyance capacity of the River Thames Scheme is well short of what is actually required.  In my opinion existing problems in the Datchet to Teddington section will merely be transferred downstream to London.

 

Link to web site – Jubilee River index page - http://www.jubileeriver.co.uk/Jubilee%20River%20story%20-%200950.htm

 

March 2016