Riki Therivel from North Hinksey in Oxford looks at the pros and cons of the Oxford Flood Allevation Scheme

Everyone who has lived or worked in Oxford since 2007 knows how badly the city can flood and how debilitating a flood can be.

But is this a reason to back any scheme that reduces flooding; or do we want a good scheme, one that protects the environment and that will work for 100+ years? Because the two are not the same.

The proposed Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme would reduce the risk of being flooded in a 1-in-100-year flood to slightly over 1,000 homes.

Read again: Plans submitted for flood alleviation scheme

To do this it proposes not only raised bridges, culverts, flood defences and bunds, but also a flood channel that would carry water from north of Botley Road to near Kennington.

Oxford Mail:

The channel is by far the most harmful and inefficient element of the scheme, which is why so many people oppose it.

Digging the channel would lead to almost 200 more lorries on the A34 every day for three years. Most of them would come out at South Hinksey. To accommodate their slow acceleration, the Environment Agency proposes to reduce the speed limit on the A34 from 70mph to 40mph for about a mile near South Hinksey.

Read again: The empty shops in Oxford city centre

The slower traffic and tailbacks would worsen air pollution in an area where this is already above legal limits.

The channel would destroy part of a 1,000-year-old rare flood meadow (Hinksey Meadow) and threaten the rest of the meadow by reducing water levels.

Oxford Mail:

It would destroy the Kendall Copse woodland which was planted by local residents, and most of Kennington Pit Local Nature Reserve.

It would prevent people from using much of the area between North and South Hinksey during construction, and reduce people’s ability to walk there afterwards because of the protective fencing needed.

Read more: Progress on cycle safety

It would increase carbon emissions by cutting down thousands of trees and digging up soil that is fixing carbon. Only 10 years of maintenance are included: without maintenance, the channel will clog up and be less efficient. The £23m channel would reduce flood risk at (depending on the scenario chosen) between 51 and 157 homes.

Oxford Mail:

The remaining 94% of homes can be protected through the bridges, bunds etc.

The channel would cost £146,000-£451,000 per additional home protected. The channel addresses the concerns of a small group, with no regard to the costs borne by so many more of us, or by the wider environment. It would be much cheaper and less destructive to protect these homes from flooding in other ways.

Read again: Shoppers evacuated from Tesco

Several alternatives have been proposed, including a “no second stage channel” (the first stage is essentially existing streams) option and a pipeline option.

A starting point could be clearing the existing streams!

Oxford Mail:

However the Environment Agency seem unwilling to consider anything other than a channel.

They are basically saying “take this scheme or nothing”. Oxford deserves better.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Tik Tok

Got a story for us? Send us your news and pictures here

List an event for free on our website here