Sir – The Western Conveyance flood mitigation channel has apparently been “given the go-ahead”. But this is a potentially a dreadful mis-use of taxpayers’ money.

What are the facts about flood losses in Oxford? In 2013/14 there were just a few score properties flooded. Yes, the Botley and Abingdon Roads were severely disrupted, but Oxford was hardly cut off. Any loss of business last winter was probably caught up later, or transferred close by. Did significant numbers of businesses fail? I think not.

In the more serious 2007 floods the numbers were just c. 2,000 homes, and c. 200 businesses ‘affected’ in and around Oxford, but far fewer were flooded.

In contrast, 55,000 homes were actually flooded nationwide. The main flood-prone areas of Oxford (Jericho and Grandpont) are not forecast to flood more than once every 100 years: the risk there is really very small, as the high property values there confirm.

A sum of £125m needs justification by annual flood losses of about £4m, that is, on average, £4m every year.

This is simply not the case now. Before 2007 only 1947 saw major flooding, and that was more than 60 years ago. The losses in Oxford today, when averaged over many years, are really quite low, judged nationally. And the river shows no signs at all of increasing flood frequency, say from climate change.

The budget for flood works nationwide is limited, and 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 probably half that, at the very best. Maybe even just one-fifth.

The damage from flooding in Oxford can be reduced without the grandiose bypass channel, as has already been done in streets off the Botley Road (thereby reducing the proposed channel’s economic viability still further). The flooding cannot be eliminated in this way, but neither will the “conveyance” channel do that.

What is left of the taxpayers’ £125m after sensible minor flood mitigation works around Oxford can either be 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