So the Western Conveyance flood mitigation channel “has the go-ahead”.

But this is a potentially a dreadful misuse of taxpayers’ money. What are the facts about Oxford flood losses? In 2013/14 there were just a few score properties flooded. The Botley and Abingdon Roads were severely disrupted but Oxford was hardly cut off. Any loss of business was probably recouped later, or transferred close by. Did significant businesses fail? I think not.

In the more serious 2007 floods, just c. 2,000 homes and c. 200 businesses were ‘affected’ in and around Oxford, although far fewer were flooded. But 55,000 homes were actually flooded nationwide. Oxford’s main flood prone areas (Jericho; Grandpont) are not forecast to flood more than once every 100 years: the risk there is really very low, as the high property values there confirm.

Spending £125m needs justification by average annual flood losses of c. £4m. Before 2007 only 1947 saw major flooding – 60 plus years ago. The average losses in Oxford today are therefore quite low, judged nationally. And the river shows no increasing flood frequency, say from climate change.

The budget for flood-works nationwide is limited. Many schemes elsewhere in England will be refused support if affluent Oxford “jumps the queue”. And those schemes generally see an £8 return for every £1 spent; in Oxford it is massively less.

Flood losses in Oxford can be reduced without the grandiose bypass channel.

Flooding cannot thus be eliminated, but neither will the £125m channel do that. What is left of the taxpayers’ £125m after sensible minor flood mitigation works around Oxford can either be far better spent to reduce flooding elsewhere, or used to fund other badly needed projects that are demonstrably more worthwhile.

Prof Edmund Penning-Rowsell, Distinguished Research Associate, Oxford University Centre for the Environment

  • Today’s letters

Want to give your opinion? Email letters@oxfordmail.co.uk