Bid is to be made to build £160m flood relief channel

thisisoxfordshire: Bob Price at the flood defences.  Picture: OX64523 Marc West Buy this photo Bob Price at the flood defences. Picture: OX64523 Marc West

A BID for funds for a £160m scheme to divert flood water away from the city could be made next month, officials have revealed.

Staff at the Environment Agency are currently carrying out modelling into whether parts of the Western Conveyance Channel – a plan to build a flood relief channel as wide as the River Thames to divert flood water – should go ahead.

The plan, which was raised four years ago but has not got off the drawing board, could help save the city from some of the worst effects witnessed this week.

Officials have a month to submit a plan in order to ask the Government for cash in time for the latest funding round.

There was travel chaos in and around the city after the closure of Botley Road in Oxford followed the shutdown of Abingdon Road earlier in the week.

Journeys into the city were hampered by crippling traffic jams, with some forced to abandon plans to go into work because of the severity of the queues.

Officials cannot say when the two roads will reopen, but there are fears it may not be until the end of the week.

Now a long-term plan to stop the city descending into chaos in the future is being looked at again.

Rodney Rose, deputy leader of Oxfordshire County Council, said it was vital to look at how to prevent the chaos caused by flooding in and around Oxford.

He said: “There are no other schemes that I am aware of that have been remotely looked at which could solve this problem once and for all. It is the only one which solves both the Botley Road and the Abingdon Road problems, if it works.

“It has been priced and some parts of it are now being modelled.

“Part of it at Sandford Lock [at Sandford-on-Thames] will be the one which has the most effect and that will cost in the region of £2.5m. We are fighting like hell to get what funding we can.”

The channel – which would run from the area around the Seacourt Park-and-Ride off Botley Road to the River Thames at Sandford Lock – would aim to divert water away from Oxford to stop it spreading across the city.

Although the Western Conveyance project went out to consultation three years ago, it has never progressed due to a lack of funding.

City council leader Bob Price said it would be the only way of definitively tackling the issue of flooding in parts of Oxford, but added: “It has a lower priority on the Environment Agency’s list than I would like because the number of houses it would protect from flooding is relatively small.

“But if you count the economic impact, then it is very significant.”

On Tuesday, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson visited Oxford and said the Government was investing more money into flood defences than any previous administration.

But Mr Price said the amount of investment locally had been small.

Peter Rawcliffe, of Oxford Flood Alliance, said: “The preliminary assessments show the part of the scheme at Sandford would significantly lower the water level on the western floodplain and that would be tremendous.

“It has to be looked at further but we need to get a move on and get bids in.”

Environment Agency spokesman Joe Giacomelli said: “The Western Conveyance Channel is on our list of priority flood defence projects, but this scheme requires multi-million-pound partnership funding investment in order to go ahead.

“Modelling of the project is under way but due to our ongoing response to flooding taking place across the South East, we cannot currently say when this will be completed.”

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:23am Thu 9 Jan 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

A few years back there was an expression of interest to build a "rowing lake" in this area - following the excavation of minerals.

There was a massive row about it from various "activists" with the usual comments about it destroying the green-belt, ruining peoples lives even anxiety over how a large body of water could have a deleterious affect on the micro climate of Oxford.

If such a facility had been built, and been well managed through cooperation with the environment agency - we may not be in the position the city is in once again.
A few years back there was an expression of interest to build a "rowing lake" in this area - following the excavation of minerals. There was a massive row about it from various "activists" with the usual comments about it destroying the green-belt, ruining peoples lives even anxiety over how a large body of water could have a deleterious affect on the micro climate of Oxford. If such a facility had been built, and been well managed through cooperation with the environment agency - we may not be in the position the city is in once again. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: -58

9:41am Thu 9 Jan 14

hammerthebarstewards says...

Here we go again with another pie in the sky dumb idea!
Why waste £160 million of Taxpayers money on a scheme that would not only cause disruption to all and everything in the proposed path of this 'Channel' when the solution is already in place right now!
The solution has to be Nationwide Dredging of our rivers and their tributaries, smaller streams and watercourses need to be cleared and kept clear with every ditch dug out and again maintained. If the water has somewhere to drain into then surely most of the flood waters would be contained Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. Many good full time jobs could also be created in doing this work.
Here we go again with another pie in the sky dumb idea! Why waste £160 million of Taxpayers money on a scheme that would not only cause disruption to all and everything in the proposed path of this 'Channel' when the solution is already in place right now! The solution has to be Nationwide Dredging of our rivers and their tributaries, smaller streams and watercourses need to be cleared and kept clear with every ditch dug out and again maintained. If the water has somewhere to drain into then surely most of the flood waters would be contained Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. Many good full time jobs could also be created in doing this work. hammerthebarstewards
  • Score: -135

9:46am Thu 9 Jan 14

EMBOX2 says...

Quite right, Andrew.

Much like what the Environment Agency are doing in London - closing the Thames barrier at low tide, then letting it refill with the floodwater from upstream (i.e. here) and then releasing it later in the day by opening the barrer again.

A similar scheme could happen here. The "rowing lake" could be emptied gradually before the heavy rain arrives, and then used as a reservoir to store the floodwater by allowing the Thames to refill it. When the rain subsides, empty the lake gradually.

Building a lake the size of Eton Dorney (2200m x 108m x 5m) would store 1.2m cubic meters of water. Dig it another meter deep and you increase that capacity by 250,000 m3.
Quite right, Andrew. Much like what the Environment Agency are doing in London - closing the Thames barrier at low tide, then letting it refill with the floodwater from upstream (i.e. here) and then releasing it later in the day by opening the barrer again. A similar scheme could happen here. The "rowing lake" could be emptied gradually before the heavy rain arrives, and then used as a reservoir to store the floodwater by allowing the Thames to refill it. When the rain subsides, empty the lake gradually. Building a lake the size of Eton Dorney (2200m x 108m x 5m) would store 1.2m cubic meters of water. Dig it another meter deep and you increase that capacity by 250,000 m3. EMBOX2
  • Score: -107

10:28am Thu 9 Jan 14

GaryOxford says...

hammerthebarstewards wrote:
Here we go again with another pie in the sky dumb idea! Why waste £160 million of Taxpayers money on a scheme that would not only cause disruption to all and everything in the proposed path of this 'Channel' when the solution is already in place right now! The solution has to be Nationwide Dredging of our rivers and their tributaries, smaller streams and watercourses need to be cleared and kept clear with every ditch dug out and again maintained. If the water has somewhere to drain into then surely most of the flood waters would be contained Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. Many good full time jobs could also be created in doing this work.
I couldn't agree with you more. People need to stop looking for big ticket magic bullets and go back to the simple tried and tested but less exciting measures.
Currently the Thames is only dredged in certain places when the silt builds so much that it causes problems for boats. If the Thames was dredged thoroughly then it would free up a lot of space for water. The excuse now is that it is too expensive to dispose of the silt removed from the thames. Personally I would have thought it could be disposed of at sea, as that's where it will up in the end.
[quote][p][bold]hammerthebarstewards[/bold] wrote: Here we go again with another pie in the sky dumb idea! Why waste £160 million of Taxpayers money on a scheme that would not only cause disruption to all and everything in the proposed path of this 'Channel' when the solution is already in place right now! The solution has to be Nationwide Dredging of our rivers and their tributaries, smaller streams and watercourses need to be cleared and kept clear with every ditch dug out and again maintained. If the water has somewhere to drain into then surely most of the flood waters would be contained Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. Many good full time jobs could also be created in doing this work.[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree with you more. People need to stop looking for big ticket magic bullets and go back to the simple tried and tested but less exciting measures. Currently the Thames is only dredged in certain places when the silt builds so much that it causes problems for boats. If the Thames was dredged thoroughly then it would free up a lot of space for water. The excuse now is that it is too expensive to dispose of the silt removed from the thames. Personally I would have thought it could be disposed of at sea, as that's where it will up in the end. GaryOxford
  • Score: -93

11:33am Thu 9 Jan 14

The Foxy Lady says...

GaryOxford wrote:
hammerthebarstewards wrote: Here we go again with another pie in the sky dumb idea! Why waste £160 million of Taxpayers money on a scheme that would not only cause disruption to all and everything in the proposed path of this 'Channel' when the solution is already in place right now! The solution has to be Nationwide Dredging of our rivers and their tributaries, smaller streams and watercourses need to be cleared and kept clear with every ditch dug out and again maintained. If the water has somewhere to drain into then surely most of the flood waters would be contained Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. Many good full time jobs could also be created in doing this work.
I couldn't agree with you more. People need to stop looking for big ticket magic bullets and go back to the simple tried and tested but less exciting measures. Currently the Thames is only dredged in certain places when the silt builds so much that it causes problems for boats. If the Thames was dredged thoroughly then it would free up a lot of space for water. The excuse now is that it is too expensive to dispose of the silt removed from the thames. Personally I would have thought it could be disposed of at sea, as that's where it will up in the end.
Aboslutely, good to hear such common, obvious sense!!!!
[quote][p][bold]GaryOxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammerthebarstewards[/bold] wrote: Here we go again with another pie in the sky dumb idea! Why waste £160 million of Taxpayers money on a scheme that would not only cause disruption to all and everything in the proposed path of this 'Channel' when the solution is already in place right now! The solution has to be Nationwide Dredging of our rivers and their tributaries, smaller streams and watercourses need to be cleared and kept clear with every ditch dug out and again maintained. If the water has somewhere to drain into then surely most of the flood waters would be contained Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. Many good full time jobs could also be created in doing this work.[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree with you more. People need to stop looking for big ticket magic bullets and go back to the simple tried and tested but less exciting measures. Currently the Thames is only dredged in certain places when the silt builds so much that it causes problems for boats. If the Thames was dredged thoroughly then it would free up a lot of space for water. The excuse now is that it is too expensive to dispose of the silt removed from the thames. Personally I would have thought it could be disposed of at sea, as that's where it will up in the end.[/p][/quote]Aboslutely, good to hear such common, obvious sense!!!! The Foxy Lady
  • Score: -92

12:07pm Thu 9 Jan 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

EMBOX2 wrote:
Quite right, Andrew.

Much like what the Environment Agency are doing in London - closing the Thames barrier at low tide, then letting it refill with the floodwater from upstream (i.e. here) and then releasing it later in the day by opening the barrer again.

A similar scheme could happen here. The "rowing lake" could be emptied gradually before the heavy rain arrives, and then used as a reservoir to store the floodwater by allowing the Thames to refill it. When the rain subsides, empty the lake gradually.

Building a lake the size of Eton Dorney (2200m x 108m x 5m) would store 1.2m cubic meters of water. Dig it another meter deep and you increase that capacity by 250,000 m3.
Didnt someone want to build a huge reservoir on Farmland just by Abingdon near Marcham? Thames Water perhaps? would that have helped.. I guess it would, but hey ho the nimbies won on that one
[quote][p][bold]EMBOX2[/bold] wrote: Quite right, Andrew. Much like what the Environment Agency are doing in London - closing the Thames barrier at low tide, then letting it refill with the floodwater from upstream (i.e. here) and then releasing it later in the day by opening the barrer again. A similar scheme could happen here. The "rowing lake" could be emptied gradually before the heavy rain arrives, and then used as a reservoir to store the floodwater by allowing the Thames to refill it. When the rain subsides, empty the lake gradually. Building a lake the size of Eton Dorney (2200m x 108m x 5m) would store 1.2m cubic meters of water. Dig it another meter deep and you increase that capacity by 250,000 m3.[/p][/quote]Didnt someone want to build a huge reservoir on Farmland just by Abingdon near Marcham? Thames Water perhaps? would that have helped.. I guess it would, but hey ho the nimbies won on that one yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: -183

1:42pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Whitto says...

Could they not put a number of these hydro electric plants like the one built at Osney along the channel to help pay for the costs?
Could they not put a number of these hydro electric plants like the one built at Osney along the channel to help pay for the costs? Whitto
  • Score: -84

2:05pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Oflife says...

hammerthebarstewards wrote:
Here we go again with another pie in the sky dumb idea!
Why waste £160 million of Taxpayers money on a scheme that would not only cause disruption to all and everything in the proposed path of this 'Channel' when the solution is already in place right now!
The solution has to be Nationwide Dredging of our rivers and their tributaries, smaller streams and watercourses need to be cleared and kept clear with every ditch dug out and again maintained. If the water has somewhere to drain into then surely most of the flood waters would be contained Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. Many good full time jobs could also be created in doing this work.
Or we stop using carbon fuels and allow the Earth's climate to slowly self repair, as it did when we first left the trees whilst volcanoes spewed particles into the air.

All these temp fixes are expensive, inconvenient, and akin to hold your hand on a gaping wound whilst blood continues to spurt from the gaps until you pass out, your hand falls away from the wound, and you subsequently die.
[quote][p][bold]hammerthebarstewards[/bold] wrote: Here we go again with another pie in the sky dumb idea! Why waste £160 million of Taxpayers money on a scheme that would not only cause disruption to all and everything in the proposed path of this 'Channel' when the solution is already in place right now! The solution has to be Nationwide Dredging of our rivers and their tributaries, smaller streams and watercourses need to be cleared and kept clear with every ditch dug out and again maintained. If the water has somewhere to drain into then surely most of the flood waters would be contained Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. Many good full time jobs could also be created in doing this work.[/p][/quote]Or we stop using carbon fuels and allow the Earth's climate to slowly self repair, as it did when we first left the trees whilst volcanoes spewed particles into the air. All these temp fixes are expensive, inconvenient, and akin to hold your hand on a gaping wound whilst blood continues to spurt from the gaps until you pass out, your hand falls away from the wound, and you subsequently die. Oflife
  • Score: -89

2:29pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Brain_Wave says...

HammertheBarStewards says it would be cheaper to dredge and maintain our nationwide network of rivers, streams and ditches.

Has he actually considered the labour costs of doing that? Yes it could help but would probably cost far more, unless the work is going to be done as "community service" by those currently unemployed or in gaol. Chain-gangs of navvies might be rather picturesque.
He also says "Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. " Exactly how does he propose to claw money back from our EU contributions?
There is no method of doing this. Either we have to leave the EU - which is bankrupting us - or go on borrowing money as we do now to pay our contributions and their bank bail-out costs.
This year we have spent a £ billion on the legal costs of "gay" marriage while neglecting life-saving needs like flood defences. The government should be ashamed of its priorities.
HammertheBarStewards says it would be cheaper to dredge and maintain our nationwide network of rivers, streams and ditches. Has he actually considered the labour costs of doing that? Yes it could help but would probably cost far more, unless the work is going to be done as "community service" by those currently unemployed or in gaol. Chain-gangs of navvies might be rather picturesque. He also says "Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. " Exactly how does he propose to claw money back from our EU contributions? There is no method of doing this. Either we have to leave the EU - which is bankrupting us - or go on borrowing money as we do now to pay our contributions and their bank bail-out costs. This year we have spent a £ billion on the legal costs of "gay" marriage while neglecting life-saving needs like flood defences. The government should be ashamed of its priorities. Brain_Wave
  • Score: -89

3:43pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Bon Rurgundy says...

Brain_Wave wrote:
HammertheBarStewards says it would be cheaper to dredge and maintain our nationwide network of rivers, streams and ditches.

Has he actually considered the labour costs of doing that? Yes it could help but would probably cost far more, unless the work is going to be done as "community service" by those currently unemployed or in gaol. Chain-gangs of navvies might be rather picturesque.
He also says "Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. " Exactly how does he propose to claw money back from our EU contributions?
There is no method of doing this. Either we have to leave the EU - which is bankrupting us - or go on borrowing money as we do now to pay our contributions and their bank bail-out costs.
This year we have spent a £ billion on the legal costs of "gay" marriage while neglecting life-saving needs like flood defences. The government should be ashamed of its priorities.
So, Oxford is flooded because of the gays? I'm going to have a word with them....
[quote][p][bold]Brain_Wave[/bold] wrote: HammertheBarStewards says it would be cheaper to dredge and maintain our nationwide network of rivers, streams and ditches. Has he actually considered the labour costs of doing that? Yes it could help but would probably cost far more, unless the work is going to be done as "community service" by those currently unemployed or in gaol. Chain-gangs of navvies might be rather picturesque. He also says "Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. " Exactly how does he propose to claw money back from our EU contributions? There is no method of doing this. Either we have to leave the EU - which is bankrupting us - or go on borrowing money as we do now to pay our contributions and their bank bail-out costs. This year we have spent a £ billion on the legal costs of "gay" marriage while neglecting life-saving needs like flood defences. The government should be ashamed of its priorities.[/p][/quote]So, Oxford is flooded because of the gays? I'm going to have a word with them.... Bon Rurgundy
  • Score: 1

4:21pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Fallguy27 says...

I thought the EA have had quite an extensive program of dredging out Oxford's channels since 2007. I suspect if they hadn't things would have been even worse this time around. Can't see an easy solution. Build your city on a flood-plain, city floods.
I thought the EA have had quite an extensive program of dredging out Oxford's channels since 2007. I suspect if they hadn't things would have been even worse this time around. Can't see an easy solution. Build your city on a flood-plain, city floods. Fallguy27
  • Score: -94

4:35pm Thu 9 Jan 14

EMBOX2 says...

Whitto wrote:
Could they not put a number of these hydro electric plants like the one built at Osney along the channel to help pay for the costs?
They make such a tiny amount of power it would take literally thousands of years to pay back the costs!

But yes, dredging would help for sure.

Farmoor is for freshwater, flood water is full of nasties, you'd end up poisoning most of the county...
[quote][p][bold]Whitto[/bold] wrote: Could they not put a number of these hydro electric plants like the one built at Osney along the channel to help pay for the costs?[/p][/quote]They make such a tiny amount of power it would take literally thousands of years to pay back the costs! But yes, dredging would help for sure. Farmoor is for freshwater, flood water is full of nasties, you'd end up poisoning most of the county... EMBOX2
  • Score: -111

3:47pm Fri 10 Jan 14

GeoffBroughton says...

"Abingdon-in-Thames" would be a better name after the Oxford flood relief channel is built.
"Abingdon-in-Thames" would be a better name after the Oxford flood relief channel is built. GeoffBroughton
  • Score: -88

11:50am Sat 11 Jan 14

GaryOxford says...

Fallguy27 wrote:
I thought the EA have had quite an extensive program of dredging out Oxford's channels since 2007. I suspect if they hadn't things would have been even worse this time around. Can't see an easy solution. Build your city on a flood-plain, city floods.
The EA only dredge the Thames for boat navigation. I think maintenance of drainage ditches etc. is complicated because the responsibility is uncertain, is it private owners of the land in some cases, the local council, the county council or the environment agency.
There is some information on this link about dredging the Thames.
http://www.jubileeri
ver.co.uk/Jubilee%20
River%20story%20-%20
0550.htm
Although dredging the Thames and mainenance of other watercourses may not stop Oxford flooding during extreme weather it could mitigate the affects.
[quote][p][bold]Fallguy27[/bold] wrote: I thought the EA have had quite an extensive program of dredging out Oxford's channels since 2007. I suspect if they hadn't things would have been even worse this time around. Can't see an easy solution. Build your city on a flood-plain, city floods.[/p][/quote]The EA only dredge the Thames for boat navigation. I think maintenance of drainage ditches etc. is complicated because the responsibility is uncertain, is it private owners of the land in some cases, the local council, the county council or the environment agency. There is some information on this link about dredging the Thames. http://www.jubileeri ver.co.uk/Jubilee%20 River%20story%20-%20 0550.htm Although dredging the Thames and mainenance of other watercourses may not stop Oxford flooding during extreme weather it could mitigate the affects. GaryOxford
  • Score: -7

11:58am Sun 12 Jan 14

the wizard says...

hammerthebarstewards wrote:
Here we go again with another pie in the sky dumb idea!
Why waste £160 million of Taxpayers money on a scheme that would not only cause disruption to all and everything in the proposed path of this 'Channel' when the solution is already in place right now!
The solution has to be Nationwide Dredging of our rivers and their tributaries, smaller streams and watercourses need to be cleared and kept clear with every ditch dug out and again maintained. If the water has somewhere to drain into then surely most of the flood waters would be contained Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. Many good full time jobs could also be created in doing this work.
Before privatization of the water industry Thames Conservency used to do just as you suggest. Dredging and maintenance of the vital Thames waterways. It was a all round the year job, and as such we suffered far less disruption and flooding than today.

Along came the Thatcher person who made a mission of selling the public something they already owned, and we ended up with Thames Water, which incidentally is owned by an overseas parent company. They knee jerk react to situations as opposed to having already in place solutions, called maintenance.

If the council has cash reserves then the government is right in making the council use some or part of those reserves to fund part of the solution. There is absolutely no point what so ever in councils amassing these funds if they are not going to use them to combat issues such as this. Surely the folly of their ways in hoarding cash which has been paid to them in places of little or no return such as Icelandic Banks should have been brought home to them over the last few years, but the hoarding continues inline with the floods. While Councillors are bleating about cost, just how about the cost to business, individuals and insurance companies. Further scrutiny should also be focused on planning permission given to builders who have built on flood plains and areas known to be at high risk in direct contravention of central government directives, and renewed focus of the individuals who granted that planning permission.
[quote][p][bold]hammerthebarstewards[/bold] wrote: Here we go again with another pie in the sky dumb idea! Why waste £160 million of Taxpayers money on a scheme that would not only cause disruption to all and everything in the proposed path of this 'Channel' when the solution is already in place right now! The solution has to be Nationwide Dredging of our rivers and their tributaries, smaller streams and watercourses need to be cleared and kept clear with every ditch dug out and again maintained. If the water has somewhere to drain into then surely most of the flood waters would be contained Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. Many good full time jobs could also be created in doing this work.[/p][/quote]Before privatization of the water industry Thames Conservency used to do just as you suggest. Dredging and maintenance of the vital Thames waterways. It was a all round the year job, and as such we suffered far less disruption and flooding than today. Along came the Thatcher person who made a mission of selling the public something they already owned, and we ended up with Thames Water, which incidentally is owned by an overseas parent company. They knee jerk react to situations as opposed to having already in place solutions, called maintenance. If the council has cash reserves then the government is right in making the council use some or part of those reserves to fund part of the solution. There is absolutely no point what so ever in councils amassing these funds if they are not going to use them to combat issues such as this. Surely the folly of their ways in hoarding cash which has been paid to them in places of little or no return such as Icelandic Banks should have been brought home to them over the last few years, but the hoarding continues inline with the floods. While Councillors are bleating about cost, just how about the cost to business, individuals and insurance companies. Further scrutiny should also be focused on planning permission given to builders who have built on flood plains and areas known to be at high risk in direct contravention of central government directives, and renewed focus of the individuals who granted that planning permission. the wizard
  • Score: -53

4:10pm Sun 12 Jan 14

the wizard says...

GaryOxford wrote:
Fallguy27 wrote:
I thought the EA have had quite an extensive program of dredging out Oxford's channels since 2007. I suspect if they hadn't things would have been even worse this time around. Can't see an easy solution. Build your city on a flood-plain, city floods.
The EA only dredge the Thames for boat navigation. I think maintenance of drainage ditches etc. is complicated because the responsibility is uncertain, is it private owners of the land in some cases, the local council, the county council or the environment agency.
There is some information on this link about dredging the Thames.
http://www.jubileeri

ver.co.uk/Jubilee%20

River%20story%20-%20

0550.htm
Although dredging the Thames and mainenance of other watercourses may not stop Oxford flooding during extreme weather it could mitigate the affects.
Was it not the case that a few years back a farmer got into trouble for dredging water ways that bordered his property. It seems that the water companies do what they want since being privatized .

As long as water companies as a whole are in private ownership they will not be as responsible to the public as if they were in public ownership. While I am not in favour of mass nationalization there is now a case for water companies coming under a more stricter regime of scrutiny by the government. On the face of things Thames Water likes to dictate and bully to get its won way. Something which should be brought under tighter control.
[quote][p][bold]GaryOxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fallguy27[/bold] wrote: I thought the EA have had quite an extensive program of dredging out Oxford's channels since 2007. I suspect if they hadn't things would have been even worse this time around. Can't see an easy solution. Build your city on a flood-plain, city floods.[/p][/quote]The EA only dredge the Thames for boat navigation. I think maintenance of drainage ditches etc. is complicated because the responsibility is uncertain, is it private owners of the land in some cases, the local council, the county council or the environment agency. There is some information on this link about dredging the Thames. http://www.jubileeri ver.co.uk/Jubilee%20 River%20story%20-%20 0550.htm Although dredging the Thames and mainenance of other watercourses may not stop Oxford flooding during extreme weather it could mitigate the affects.[/p][/quote]Was it not the case that a few years back a farmer got into trouble for dredging water ways that bordered his property. It seems that the water companies do what they want since being privatized . As long as water companies as a whole are in private ownership they will not be as responsible to the public as if they were in public ownership. While I am not in favour of mass nationalization there is now a case for water companies coming under a more stricter regime of scrutiny by the government. On the face of things Thames Water likes to dictate and bully to get its won way. Something which should be brought under tighter control. the wizard
  • Score: -53

4:40pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Yellowlines says...

Whitto wrote:
Could they not put a number of these hydro electric plants like the one built at Osney along the channel to help pay for the costs?
The one at Osney will not work as you will see one day soon. If the Seacourt Stream was dredged and cleared it would divert water around Oxford. It comes out above Sandford Lock where improvements could be made to the weir and also at Abingdon. Please do not think the answer is for stupid hydro units like Osney. If you check the website for the Osney Mill hydro you will see it has stopped because the water below it is too high for it to get rid of the water going through it.
[quote][p][bold]Whitto[/bold] wrote: Could they not put a number of these hydro electric plants like the one built at Osney along the channel to help pay for the costs?[/p][/quote]The one at Osney will not work as you will see one day soon. If the Seacourt Stream was dredged and cleared it would divert water around Oxford. It comes out above Sandford Lock where improvements could be made to the weir and also at Abingdon. Please do not think the answer is for stupid hydro units like Osney. If you check the website for the Osney Mill hydro you will see it has stopped because the water below it is too high for it to get rid of the water going through it. Yellowlines
  • Score: -87

12:26am Mon 13 Jan 14

hammerthebarstewards says...

Brain_Wave wrote:
HammertheBarStewards says it would be cheaper to dredge and maintain our nationwide network of rivers, streams and ditches.

Has he actually considered the labour costs of doing that? Yes it could help but would probably cost far more, unless the work is going to be done as "community service" by those currently unemployed or in gaol. Chain-gangs of navvies might be rather picturesque.
He also says "Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. " Exactly how does he propose to claw money back from our EU contributions?
There is no method of doing this. Either we have to leave the EU - which is bankrupting us - or go on borrowing money as we do now to pay our contributions and their bank bail-out costs.
This year we have spent a £ billion on the legal costs of "gay" marriage while neglecting life-saving needs like flood defences. The government should be ashamed of its priorities.
I agree with leaving the EU as soon as possible - that money that is taken from us Taxpayers should be spent here in the UK on the vital requirements of our people!
[quote][p][bold]Brain_Wave[/bold] wrote: HammertheBarStewards says it would be cheaper to dredge and maintain our nationwide network of rivers, streams and ditches. Has he actually considered the labour costs of doing that? Yes it could help but would probably cost far more, unless the work is going to be done as "community service" by those currently unemployed or in gaol. Chain-gangs of navvies might be rather picturesque. He also says "Money for this vital work should be clawed back from our EU contributions. " Exactly how does he propose to claw money back from our EU contributions? There is no method of doing this. Either we have to leave the EU - which is bankrupting us - or go on borrowing money as we do now to pay our contributions and their bank bail-out costs. This year we have spent a £ billion on the legal costs of "gay" marriage while neglecting life-saving needs like flood defences. The government should be ashamed of its priorities.[/p][/quote]I agree with leaving the EU as soon as possible - that money that is taken from us Taxpayers should be spent here in the UK on the vital requirements of our people! hammerthebarstewards
  • Score: -135

8:50pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Localyokel99 says...

GeoffBroughton wrote:
"Abingdon-in-Th
ames" would be a better name after the Oxford flood relief channel is built.
Absolutely correct... all these local schemes do is shift the problem from one area to another. Great for getting votes for Oxford Councillors but useless in solving the problem for the area as a whole. Until there is an integrated approach for the whole of the Thames (including dredging, flood reservoirs, barriers, etc etc) the only choice is who gets flooded and how many £millions are wasted on headline grabbing schemes.
[quote][p][bold]GeoffBroughton[/bold] wrote: "Abingdon-in-Th ames" would be a better name after the Oxford flood relief channel is built.[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct... all these local schemes do is shift the problem from one area to another. Great for getting votes for Oxford Councillors but useless in solving the problem for the area as a whole. Until there is an integrated approach for the whole of the Thames (including dredging, flood reservoirs, barriers, etc etc) the only choice is who gets flooded and how many £millions are wasted on headline grabbing schemes. Localyokel99
  • Score: -114

2:16pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Richard of Wantage says...

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
EMBOX2 wrote:
Quite right, Andrew.

Much like what the Environment Agency are doing in London - closing the Thames barrier at low tide, then letting it refill with the floodwater from upstream (i.e. here) and then releasing it later in the day by opening the barrer again.

A similar scheme could happen here. The "rowing lake" could be emptied gradually before the heavy rain arrives, and then used as a reservoir to store the floodwater by allowing the Thames to refill it. When the rain subsides, empty the lake gradually.

Building a lake the size of Eton Dorney (2200m x 108m x 5m) would store 1.2m cubic meters of water. Dig it another meter deep and you increase that capacity by 250,000 m3.
Didnt someone want to build a huge reservoir on Farmland just by Abingdon near Marcham? Thames Water perhaps? would that have helped.. I guess it would, but hey ho the nimbies won on that one
No chance of that happening! That land has been ear marked for a multi billion pound new garden city, with all modern drainage going straight back into the Thames. You think you have experienced flooding, waiting until the new garden city is up and running!
[quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EMBOX2[/bold] wrote: Quite right, Andrew. Much like what the Environment Agency are doing in London - closing the Thames barrier at low tide, then letting it refill with the floodwater from upstream (i.e. here) and then releasing it later in the day by opening the barrer again. A similar scheme could happen here. The "rowing lake" could be emptied gradually before the heavy rain arrives, and then used as a reservoir to store the floodwater by allowing the Thames to refill it. When the rain subsides, empty the lake gradually. Building a lake the size of Eton Dorney (2200m x 108m x 5m) would store 1.2m cubic meters of water. Dig it another meter deep and you increase that capacity by 250,000 m3.[/p][/quote]Didnt someone want to build a huge reservoir on Farmland just by Abingdon near Marcham? Thames Water perhaps? would that have helped.. I guess it would, but hey ho the nimbies won on that one[/p][/quote]No chance of that happening! That land has been ear marked for a multi billion pound new garden city, with all modern drainage going straight back into the Thames. You think you have experienced flooding, waiting until the new garden city is up and running! Richard of Wantage
  • Score: -74

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree