Sir – Dr Bob Eeles writes from Abingdon (Letters, February 12), understandably concerned that a scheme to alleviate flooding in Oxford might have adverse effects downstream. Two points.

First, in the Environment Agency’s own words (January 2015): “In order for the scheme to obtain planning permission from the local planning authority it will need to demonstrate, through a detailed flood risk assessment, that it does not increase risk to other communities. Together with its partners, the Environment Agency takes this issue very seriously and is committed to reducing flood risk in Oxfordshire, not to displacing it from one area to another.”

Between now and 2018, there will be public consultation and a rigorous assessment process, which must ensure that risk is not increased for communities downstream.

Second, while we await an actual proposal and detailed hydrological modelling, it may be worth saying that the amount of water passing Oxford will not change.

Expanding existing channels and introducing a two-stage channel, with additional culverts at major crossings (eg the mainline railway) would provide additional capacity to pass flood water through the western floodplain. In larger events, these channels would overtop and fill the existing floodplain, albeit to a slightly lower level than at present.

Essentially, flood water would keep moving through the floodplain rather than accumulating. Arguably the only difference downstream might be that water arrived rather earlier, but not more overall. Of course, peaks matter: if there were to be a concrete channel here passing large volumes on very fast that would cause problems downstream, but that is not the plan.

This would be a much more natural scheme, still using the floodplain when necessary. Any scheme must help Oxford without making things worse elsewhere. If it can’t achieve both, it rightly won’t happen.

Dr Peter Rawcliffe, For the Oxford Flood Alliance Steering Group