Skip to content
DHWNEWS
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
Menu

The Politics of (Local) Flooding

Posted on November 20, 2023 by ecwlarcombe

The Politics of (Local) Flooding

A Report to Datchet, Horton & Wraysbury Parish Councils

Ewan Larcombe 20/11/2023

THE PAST:

30 years ago I gave evidence at the 1992 MWEFAS Planning Inquiry

20 years ago the Jubilee River was opened – and we flooded

10 years ago the Jubilee River was used again – and we flooded (twice this time)

5 years ago I was preparing to contest another RBWM election.  I felt that things would be different because Datchet Ward had been merged with Horton & Wraysbury Ward and the Council Member numbers reduced from 4 to 3.

4 years ago I won a seat on RBWM.  I then secured a four year appointment to the Thames Regional Flood & Coastal Committee where I represented Berkshire (except Slough), Hampshire and West Sussex.  I attended the Surrey County Council Meeting where the River Thames Scheme was announced as fully funded by all parties.  Bingo I thought – RTS on the home run now!

3 years ago I had been removed without notice from the TRFCC by the new RBWM Leader.  I was replaced by Cllr. Cannon (Conservative) who promptly announced that Channel One had been removed from the River Thames Scheme due to ‘unaffordability’.

2 years ago – Wraysbury Parish Council recorded a unanimous vote of no confidence in two of their three Borough Councillors.  The EA gained NSIP approval and applied for the RTS DCO.

1 year ago while I prepared for the 2023 election, the Environment Agency celebrated the Jubilee River’s 20th Anniversary.  (I was not invited).

NOW I am back – on the Borough Council and re-appointed to the TRFCC.  As a consequence of the FWMA 2010 the TRFCC sits at what I would classify as the PESTLE core – the place where the wide variety of risks can be considered.  The TRFCC is there to oversee, to scrutinise (and if necessary challenge) and finally to approve annual flood defence spending on specific projects. 

In my opinion the removal of Channel One from the RTS has damaged the logical connectivity and continuity of the flood defence design.  My view is that this project is no longer coherent.  Furthermore the new ‘Datchet to Hythe End Flood Improvement Measures’ project is a significantly sub-standard alternative in terms of both cost and timing.  Many millions of £’s have already been spent and I believe that RTS1 is the appropriate and only solution to the problem.

We have already been flooded three times this century.  I do not see why we (the undefended downstream villages at ever increasing risk of flooding) should be obliged to accept a cheap and delayed solution.  Apparently those upstream – who hold the purse-strings and have already benefitted from a flood alleviation scheme without the need for a partnership funding contribution – are unwilling or unable to help us.  Flooding here is still a political and economic problem – actually a genuine PESTLE problem.

THE FUTURE My most important and imminent action on the TFRCC will be to consent (or not) to next year’s Thames catchment flood defence funding – a sum that could exceed £100m. 

I have made clear that I am not minded to consent to a further £20m expenditure on top of the £70m spent on the RTS project to date.

Furthermore the RTS still requires a DCO (i.e. Ministerial planning approval) and I have stated that I will let the Planning Inspectorate know exactly what has happened here and is still happening with MWEFAS.

The root cause of our RTS problems is the concept and practice of ‘partnership funding’ that was introduced around 2011 (which was after LTFRMS).  In my opinion the project funding problem – caused by the newly created partnership funding policy – is not our problem.  It was not there in 2003, the new policy appeared in 2011 and was then improperly handled, hidden and fudged by RBWM Councillors, Officers and the EA – all of whom had every opportunity to reveal the truth in the years before 2020.  So who was in charge?  In my opinion ‘partnership funding’ is now somebody else’s geopolitical problem.

AND FINALLY

Two new issues –

  1. A) I am seeking answers as to how the Jubilee River name has been changed to Jubilee FRC without consultation.
  2. B) My investigation into the rotten Berry Hill Footbridge failure costing Bucks CC about £500,000 has exposed a significant RBWM future cost implication. Consequently I now have a Member Question on the RBWM 21/11/2023 Agenda.

END

DCO = Development Consent Order

FWMA 2010 = Floods & Water Management Act 2010

LTFRMS = Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy

MWEFAS = Maidenhead, Windsor & Eton Flood Alleviation Scheme

NSIP = Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project

PESTLE = Political, economic, social, technical, legal, environmental (elements of risk analysis)

RTS = River Thames Scheme

TFRCC = Thames Regional Flood & Coastal Committee

 

For additional and related information please see = www.dhwnews.com

Recent Posts

  • Ashford Lane footbridge – simply rotten
  • Ashford Lane Footbridge – Failure analysis
  • Ashford Lane footbridge collapse – just the beginning?
  • Jubilee River footbridge collapsed (Number 10 – Ashford Lane).
  • The DRCCT and Datchet Parish Council

DATCHET

The name "Datchet" is thought to be Celtic in origin, and the last part may be related to cet ("wood"). In the Domesday Book it is called "Daceta".lla. Datchet is first mentioned between 990 and 994, when King Ethelred made small grants of land here.

HORTON

The village name "Horton" is a common one in England. It is Old English in origin and derives from the two words horu 'dirt' and tūn 'settlement, farm, estate', presumably meaning 'farm on muddy soil'.In the Domesday Book of 1086 it was recorded as Hortune.

WRAYSBURY

The village name was traditionally spelt Wyrardisbury; it is Anglo Saxon in origin and means 'Wïgrǣd's fort'. Its name is recorded in the Domesday Book of 1086 as Wirecesberie and as Wiredesbur in 1195. The name is seen again as Wyrardesbury in 1422.

©2025 DHWNEWS | Design: Newspaperly WordPress Theme