At the RBWM Cabinet Meeting held on 30-10-2024 I raised a number of areas of concern including the following:
- MWEFAS
- honesty, openness and transparency
- River Thames Scheme, DCO and incoherence
- failure of partnership funding policy
- removal of RTS Channel One
- DHEFIM
- sub-standard wooden footbridges
Below is an extract from the text of the Minutes of the RBWM Cabinet Meeting held on 30-10-2024:
Councillor Larcombe, Datchet, Horton & Wraysbury, wished to highlight some past and future flood related matters to the Cabinet that did not necessarily require an answer immediately.
He provided a brief history on this matter to the Cabinet and questioned the idea of partnership funding. He then left them with four questions to take away. The first was who was
accountable for the £15 million of wasted development money? Second was if the RBWM Datchet to Hythe End flood improvement measures partnership funding contribution correctly accounted for? His third question was who would next be accountable for this £100 million of wasted public money? His final question was whether or not the Jubilee river footbridge replacement programme funding accounted for and approved in terms of magnitude and time.
The Chair said that Councillor Coe would reply to him offline.
The original text of my statement was as follows:
Cabinet Meeting 30-10-2024 notes – I am here to identify and highlight past and future flood related matters with geopolitical financial implications that may have been overlooked and I will leave you with four questions that do not require immediate answers.
The Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton Flood Alleviation Scheme was completed in 2002 at little or no cost to RBWM. There was no partnership funding requirement at that time.
Despite the new channel being predictably unable to convey its design capacity – the downstream villages were left undefended and at risk of repeated and exacerbated flooding.
The former RBWM Leader preached honesty, openness, transparency and collegiate working – all sadly lacking. I wish to remind you that for at least twelve years this Council supported the River Thames Scheme project until July 2020 when – without consultation or notice – RBWM pleaded poverty – being unwilling or unable to make the required £53m partnership funding contribution towards the project. Thus RBWM saved £53m.
Partnership funding was a mandatory requirement (introduced by the Treasury in 2011) that lacked RBWM partnership working and support. In fact PF is an additional tax on those at risk of flooding who are already multiply disadvantaged.
RTS Channel One (the Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury channel) was removed from the project in 2020 after the Environment Agency had spent 12 years and £millions on project development.
WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS (MAYBE £15M) WASTED MONEY?
Today Surrey County Council, Woking and Spelthorne Borough Councils all have significant debt. The total River Thames Scheme project development cost to date is about £90m.
The RTS was started around 2008, but three new bypass channels were reduced to two in 2020 due to lack of Partnership Funding from RBWM – and there is still no application submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the EA for the RTS Development Consent Order.
If a DCO is approved AND Surrey County Council is able to afford the required PF contribution (£230m committed in 2019) – the total cost of the current RTS project could be approaching £1bn.
My view is that the DHEFIM project (the replacement for the previously removed RTS Channel 1) is running late and will not attract sufficient Partnership Funding from RBWM to make that project viable.
IS THE RBWM DHEFIM PF CONTRIBUTION ACCOUNTED FOR AND APPROVED IN TERMS OF MAGNITUDE AND TIMING?
This is relevant because without DHEFIM the current RTS project itself becomes incoherent due to lack of connectivity with the previous MWEFAS channel. What right-minded and properly informed Minister is going to put their name to a DCO for another half-baked EA flood alleviation project after the last fiasco?
WHO WILL THEN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR £100M OF WASTED PUBLIC MONEY?
And finally – RBWM is now responsible for – but I suspect has failed to make provision for – replacing some of the Environment Agency’s cheap and rotting timber footbridges over the Jubilee River.
IS THE JUBILEE RIVER FOOTBRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME FUNDING (SAY £2m) ACCOUNTED FOR AND APPROVED IN TERMS OF MAGNITUDE AND TIMING?
There is a YouTube video