The Flood Relief Channel - Jubilee River - Part II - The Thames at Windsor - Discussion Areas - The Royal Windsor Forum - Message Board

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

The Flood Relief Channel - Jubilee River - Part II

Author	Comment
thamesweb	The Flood Relief Channel - Jubilee River - Part II	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1633 (06/13/05 08:31:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None This thread has been recreated from archive sources following the destructive attack on Ezboard at the end of May 2005 This thread continues an earlier thread, now closed, but linked to here 'The Flood Relief Scheme is not a failure' The Environment Agency is reported as saying in the local Observer newspaper of April 22nd 2005. Not much!! OK, so it stopped Windsor and Maidenhead being flooded in January 2003, but at what cost? By flooding the downstream reaches of the river! That was the cost! So what do we have now? A thumping great bill for improving the capacity of the existing Jubilee River so it might, just might, achieve its original design capacity without washing away its banks, and a 100m plan for a new flood protection scheme right through the lower reaches of the Thames as far as Walton-on-Thames. The tax payer pays, of course? The plans include a diversionary channel at Wraysbury, considerably increased depth to the river itself, perhaps by around a metre, (or reinstatement of the previously abandoned' river dredging' in all but name) plus provision for additional temporary flood defences similar to those installed along the River Severn. This forum is well-served by informed comment about the effects that the Jubilee River had in January 2003 and events since. The earlier Jubilee River thread is here It seems that the story has many years to run yet, for it is unlikely that any major construction will even begin for fifteen years or more. The two local papers' headlines agree on the lead story this week You are welcome to contribute your views by clicking ADD REPLY. Note the 'email me' option at the bottom of this page if you want to receive notification of additional posts.
Unregistered(d)	Press Release	#1	[-]
Posts: 0 (06/13/05 08:38:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Recreated post of original created on 17/5/05 at 9:59 pm ____________________ LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE ANTONY WOOD MEETS FLOOD ACTION GROUPS Antony Wood, Liberal Democrat candidate for Windsor in the Parliamentary Election on 5th May, met on Thursday, 21st April with members from the flood action groups Community Support Group South and ThamesAwash to be updated on the latest developments. Mr Wood said he wanted to listen and understand what happened to residents who were so badly flooded in 2003 and then to establish how he could help. Mr Wood learnt that prior to the 2003 floods the newly constructed Jubilee River had sustained damage which led to its operation being curtailed as the flood levels rose. As a result the scheme was not operated according to its design intent. This was to allow a large volume of water down the Jubilee River ahead of the River Thames natural flood peak. Over the past 27 months enormous effort has been directed by both ThamesAwash and CSG South to extract and evaluate flood data. The Mechanism Of Flooding Report states that the operation of the Jubilee River only resulted in 2-3mm increase. It has now been shown that incorrect operation caused an increased water level of 300mm (almost 1ft) at confluence. Both CSG South and ThamesAwash disagree with some of the conclusions in the MOF Report although they do support its main recommendations. Mr Wood agreed that pressure must now be brought to bear regarding the following main issues: 1.OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE JUBILEE RIVER The Jubilee River will probably never be able carry its design capacity. New and correct instructions relating to the Jubilee Rivers actual capacity need to be in place to ensure that mistakes made in utilisation of the flood relief scheme in 2003 cannot occur again. 2.DREDGING AND RIVER MAINTENANCE A realistic programme for both the River Thames and its tributaries must be reinstated immediately. The MOF Report states dredging would have reduced the level of the flood by 130mm in the Wraysbury reach. Dredging and river maintenance of the Chertsey Bourne would have reduced flooding there too. 3.LOWER THAMES STUDY A realistic scheme is still 10-20 years in the future. Pushing this forward needs to be treated as a matter of URGENT PRIORITY in order to extend protection down to the tidal Thames. Climatic change and increased building can only make matters worse. A long term solution must be implemented - not just talked about. 4.DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN The Environment Agency must be supported in seeking statutory powers to be able to VETO unsuitable developments on the vital floodplain areas, which are so critical for flood attenuation. At present the EA can only advise and recommend - this advice is frequently ignored. 5.INSURANCE Rates for riverside communities have undoubtedly risen since the 2003 flood. The EA's recently issued flood maps (which were hastily withdrawn) and the misoperation of the Jubilee River have made the problem even worse. Owners should be able to find out and challenge the flood risk component of their insurance - but this is not the procedure for many insurance companies. A mechanism for correctly evaluating risk for each property is required. Mr Wood stated that he fully supports the Lower Thames Study. Also, he appreciates that immediate help such as reinstatement of dredging must be instigated in order to help those at risk. Finally, he believes it is vital that extra funds are forthcoming from central Government to help with flood defences.
Unregistered(d)	WINDSOR'S NEW MP ADAM AFRIYIE MEETS FLOODED RESIDENTS	#2	[-]
Posts: 0 (06/13/05 08:51:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Recreated post from original posted on 17/5/05 at 10:03 pm ______________________________ NEW MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT MEETS FLOOD ACTION GROUPS Adam Afriyie, the newly elected Member of Parliament for Windsor met with members from the flood action groups Community Support Group South and ThamesAwash on 12th May 2005. The aim of the meeting was to establish how Mr Afriyie could help residents who were so badly flooded in 2003. Mr Afriyie was already aware that prior to the 2003 floods the Jubilee River had sustained damage which led to its operation being curtailed as the flood levels rose. As a result the scheme was not operated according to its design intent. This was to allow a large volume of water down the Jubilee River ahead of the River Thames natural flood peak. Over the past 27 months a huge amount of effort has been directed by both TAW and CSG South to extract and evaluate the flood data. The Mechanism Of Flooding Report stated that the operation of the Jubilee River only resulted in 2-3mm increase. It has now been shown that incorrect operation caused an increased water level of 300mm (almost 1ft) at confluence. Both CSG South and ThamesAwash disagree with some of the conclusions in the MOF Report although they do support its main recommendations. It was explained to Mr Afriyie that the Jubilee River may never be able carry its design capacity. New and correct instructions relating to the Jubilee Rivers actual capacity need to be in place to ensure that mistakes made in utilisation of the flood relief scheme in 2003 cannot occur again. Furthermore Thames dredging for flood defence purposes ceased in 1995, while Thames side development has accelerated. The 2003 flooding has affected both property values and insurance costs, and any improvements resulting from the Lower Thames Study (which is currently considering flood alleviation proposals for the Datchet to Twickenham stretch of the Thames) could be 10-15 years away. The group have asked that Mr Afriyie look into helping with regard to the following main issues: 1.Reinstate dredging immediately and get the River Thames back to the 1995 condition. Seek change of law to make dredging a duty for flood defence purposes. 2.Change of law to give EA more powers regarding planning applications in the floodplain. 3.Ask for an INDEPENDENT report by WS Atkins to review the reports which have been issued into the 2003 floods. Mr Afriyie commented: 'Flooding is a key concern for the thousands affected. As the newly elected MP I will now be looking into concrete ways in which I can help in the near future.' He continued: 'My thanks to Community Support Group South and ThamesAwash for their well prepared briefing. I hope to be in position to take a firm stance in the weeks to come.
Unregistered(d)	INDEPENDENT FIGHTS BYE ELECTION IN FLOODED AREA	#3	[-]
Posts: 0 (06/13/05 09:08:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Recreated post from original posted on 29/5/05 3:12 pm ______________________________ INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE EWAN LARCOMBE FIGHTS BYE-ELECTION Ewan Larcombe is standing as an Independent candidate in the bye-election for the Horton & Wraysbury seat on 16th June, a position which became vacant due to the resignation of Chris Bertram. Well known for his unrestrained views on the competence of the Environment Agency and their part in the terrible Thames flooding of January 2003, Ewan is currently preparing a second paper on the Jubilee River for presentation at a forthcoming environmental conference, and writing a book titled 'The Rise and Fall of the Jubilee River.' Born in 1950 and the eldest of seven children, Ewan lived in Wraysbury for the first 20 years and after short periods living in Slough and Langley has lived in Datchet for the last 28 years. After Wraysbury Primary School and Slough Technical School (now Herschel Grammar) he spent eight years working with Ford Motor Company at Langley, two years with EMI at Hayes, and five years with Graviners at Colnbrook. The last ten years have been spent working with his brother Glyn in Wraysbury. He is married (35 years with the same long-suffering woman named Irene) with 3 children and 6 grandchildren, (5 of whom currently attending Wraysbury School). Continuing studies led to qualifications including a BSc, MIEE and MCMI. As Chairman of Datchet Parish Council in the early 1990's, Mr Larcombe spent six weeks at the 1992 Public Inquiry into the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton Flood Alleviation Scheme, and believes that the promises given at the Inquiry have not been kept. The Environment Agency continues to deny that the Jubilee River exacerbated flooding in 2003. Mr Larcombe has worked tirelessly since 2003 to establish the truth and seek a way forward to help flooded residents. Ewan Larcombe states there is overwhelming evidence that: * Mismanagement and misoperation of the Jubilee River did exacerbate flooding downstream. * The performance of the hydraulic models presented in evidence at the 1992 Public Inquiry was exaggerated. * The plans approved by the Minister in 1995 were subjected to a 'cost-reduction' process prior to construction. * The Jubilee River was already damaged, unfinished, untested, incorrectly operated, and lacking flow and level gauging equipment in January 2003. * The Environment Agency ceased dredging the Thames for flood defence purposes in 1995. Mr Larcombe is angry that the Environment Agency spent 110m of public money on a world-class, award winning flood alleviation scheme that fell apart the first time it was used, and that may never be capable of carrying its design capacity of 215 cumecs. 300m of substandard embankment in Datchet cost 1.3m to rebuild. With the 'Lower Thames Study' proposals now revived, Mr Larcombe is apprehensive that the Environment Agency has failed to learn the lessons from the Jubilee River fiasco. Ewan Larcombe plans to campaign on the following issues: Press for new, complete and accurate operating instructions for the Jubilee River. Urge for the reinstatement of dredging for flood defence purposes and improvement in river maintenance. Insist on consistent advice from the Environment Agency for planning applications in the floodplain. Push for an early completion of the Lower Thames Study. Implementation of an effective scheme MUST be treated as a matter of urgent priority. Petition for a change in the law to make dredging a duty for flood defence purposes. EWAN LARCOMBE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT THIS JUST CAUSE & IS COMMITTED TO SPENDING THE NEXT 20 YEARS DOING SO IN ORDER TO HELP THE RESIDENTS OF WRAYSBURY AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
Unregistered(d)	RADIO TRANSCRIPT REGARDING JUBILEE RIVER	#4	[-]
Posts: 0 (06/15/05 03:44:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Please find below the transcript of a recent Radio 4 Programme which Clive Onions, who was Chairman of the Flood Risk Action Groups (FRAGS), circulated to all FRAG members when he issued the minutes of the last FRAG meeting held in April 2005. Transcript of 'You and Yours' Radio 4 programme - Thursday, 12th May 2005 Roger Waite: A new flood relief channel for the River Thames may have to be built to protect almost 30,000 people whose homes are at risk of flooding. They all live downstream of a flood defence project built three years ago - the Jubilee River, which cost 110M. It's emerged though that the design of the project was 'modified' in what is known as a value engineering project, in other words to save money on the original scheme, and people living in homes that were flooded in 2003 are convinced that this is one reason why another new set of flood defences is now being suggested. Well Melanie Abbot can tell us more. Tell us first Mel what the Jubilee River is? Melanie Abbot: Well it's a man-made channel and is the Environment Agency's biggest ever inland flood defence project. It cost 110M. Although man-made, it was built to look as much like a natural river as possible and was considered very innovative at the time. It's seven miles long and is designed so that water goes into the channel upstream of Maidenhead in Berkshire and returns to the Thames, downstream of Eton. The first time it was used it protected 1,000 homes upstream but 500 homes downstream suffered the worst flooding since 1947. Roger Waite: So these are the people presumably who think this value engineering exercise, as the euphemism goes, is linked to their flooding? Melanie: Well, their confidence certainly hasn't been raised by these revelations about this cost cutting exercise, value engineering exercise, and of course the phrase hasn't gone down too well with them either. A report written by the Contractors, Balfour Beattie, describes how they and the Environment Agency at the time had a 'get to know you' dinner followed by several 'getting to know you really well' drinks, and during this time they reviewed every aspect of the design and considered all changes, ranging from (the report says) the 'conventional' to the 'bizarre'. Ewan Larcombe is a Parish Councillor in Datchet, one of the areas which was flooded. Ewan Larcombe: In 1999 the Client, that's the Environment Agency, the Designers, and the Construction Contractors, they all got together and used this value engineering technique to change the design of the Jubilee River. Now I am exceedingly unhappy about that because in 1992, at the Public Inquiry, all these designs were on paper and they were submitted in evidence at the Public Inquiry. The Inspector's Report was written, here we have the Environment Agency and their Contractors, working together to change the design. Now that was never put before the public and they have implemented design changes that I believe changed the performance of the construction. Melanie: Now the contractors, they said that their value engineering exercise was designed not to change the quality of the design, not to change the content of the design, not to change the environmental impact of the design, but to do the same thing, but cheaper. Is there anything really wrong with that? Ewan Larcombe: You have only to look at the very first time they put water through the Jubilee River in January 2003. Significant segments of the construction were damaged. Surely there is something wrong here? This is 110M world class award winning scheme that fell apart the first time that it was used. Melanie: And Ewan Larcombe (speaking there) does think that there should still be a Public Inquiry into that flooding. Roger Waite: And in the meantime we have these new proposals being put forward. Melanie: That's right, there are five different approaches outlined to tackle the problem: (i) it does involve building new channels to divert the flow of the River Thames away from those areas liable to flooding. This could cost up to 200M, it would take 10-15 years to complete and would need to be approved directly by the Treasury. Another suggestion is what is known as 'river bed re-profiling'. Attempting to make the river deeper and perhaps wider. There are less ambitious options such as temporary barriers and an enhanced flood warning system. Now these suggestions - the Environment Agency says in its announcement - are a direct response to extensive flooding in January 2003 which affected those 500 homes. Roger Waite: And what has been the reaction to those ideas? Melanie: Well, 'luke warm' I think would be the word. Gillie Bolton, who lives on Ham Island in Old Windsor, she spent days only being able to get to her house by canoe back in 2003. She now sits on the pressure group 'ThamesAwash' which was set up to tackle the flood risks. Gillie Bolton: We are delighted that they are looking at these proposals, but so much more work has got to be done, because they are talking about new channels, and in my opinion, until they have the Jubilee River working properly and effectively, how can they consider building new channels. They are talking about river bed re-profiling and again, I believe that this comes in with the dredging, but perhaps to a wider issue. Roger Waite: Gillie Bolton, but is there real clear evidence now to link the Jubilee River with the flooding of people's homes? Gillie: There have been independent studies carried out to show that the Jubilee River didn't contribute to those floods, but there has also been a study by independent engineers called Atkins, which pointed to a long list of design problems with the channel, as we reported on 'You and Yours' last year. These include things like a convex weir, which arches the opposite way from what you would normally expect, no mechanism to slow down the flow of water, and the report also said that the channel was operating at only 80% of the intended capacity, and this is interesting, because it was something predicted at the original Planning Inquiry back in 1992, by Peter Ackers, a Civil Engineer, who has now retired, but who assessed the plans at the time, and he wrote then "that it would be very embarrassing for all concerned if the intended capacity wasn't achieved, saying that it's not an issue that could be clouded over and any deficiency would bring widespread and justified criticism", and I asked him what prompted this conclusion. Peter Ackers: It was the largest drainage scheme that had ever been built and it had many novel features, it was in a very sensitive area, and it was fairly obvious that if it failed to achieve its objectives, then there would be plenty of people there to complain. Melanie: And what in particular about the scheme made it different from other schemes which concerns you, and perhaps led you to believe that it may be quite difficult to predict the capacity of the channel? Peter Ackers: The fact that it was following the latest good practice of very natural looking channels, fitting much better into the landscape, but from the high prerogative point of view, that made it very difficult to predict just what its flow capacity would be. Melanie: Peter Ackers. And he also told me that at the time, no research had been done into the capacity of natural flood relief channels designed in this way. Roger Waite: And what does the Environment Agency have to say about all of this? Melanie: Well I spoke to Ian Tomes, the Area Flood Defence Manager, and asked him first what he thought about Peter Ackers' perhaps rather far sighted comments. Ian Tomes: What I would say is that at the time, the best available information was used to design the scheme. You have to remember that the hydraulic or the computer model that was used, was right back in the 1990's, this was scrutinised by the Public Inquiry by hydraulic consultants, and was found to be perfectly OK. What's happened is that we have the flooding of 2003 which has given us a lot of new information about the Thames' flows and levels, and if we designed the scheme now with that new information, it may be different. Melanie: To people living downstream then from the Jubilee River that might sound almost as if they were being used somewhat as guinea pigs for this scheme? Ian Tomes: Not at all, as I have said already the best available information that was available was used at the tome. It was scrutinised at the Public Inquiry by independent experts and they didn't have a problem with it. Melanie: Why is there now then a need for this new strategy to those people living downstream of the Jubilee River, they have been saying that it does look like an admission of failure of the scheme? Ian Tomes: No not at all, one of the highest areas of flood risk in the country with nearly 12,000 properties at risk in a 1:100 year flood event, is the area downstream of the Jubilee River, between Datchet and Teddington, and that risk has always existed. Melanie: What about this 'value engineering' exercise with something as controversial as the Jubilee River - how wise is it to shave off the costs by changing the design or altering the materials used. Ian Tomes: I think the first thing I would say about that is that value engineering is not about driving down the cost, it's an error to think that it is. It's actually a standard industry approach really which has been used for many years on large construction projects, it's about optimising the mix of cost, performance and fitness for purpose. The other thing I would say is of course that at a Public Inquiry, the detailed design is never done before a Public Inquiry. Melanie: But if it's not about driving down costs then why would the contractor (Balfour Beattie) write this report really trumpeting how well they had managed to limit the cost of the project. Ian Tomes: Well I mean, yes, the cost is one element but its optimising that mix of both cost, performance and fitness for purpose, so reducing the cost may be one outcome, but also getting better performance and better fitness for purpose may be another outcome as well Melanie: Ian Tomes from the Environment Agency speaking to me then. Roger Waite: Thank you for speaking to us Melanie Abbot. End of discussion.
Unregistered(d)	REVISED FLOOD MAPS - TIME FOR EA TO HELP THOSE BLIGHTED...	#5	[-]
Posts: 0 (06/29/05 11:51:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	29th June 2005 Dear Sir I cannot help noticing that the Environment Agency (EA) has issued yet another set of revised flood maps, thus spreading the current blight on local property values and insurance costs still further afield. The 110m Jubilee River fiasco rumbles on still unresolved, and promises given in 1992 that the risk of flooding would not increase in the downstream villages have not been kept! As if to rub salt into the wound, the EA now have the audacity to claim that the new flood maps 'enable those living and working within it to be prepared'. I realise that for a long list of reasons the EA are reluctant to dredge The Thames for flood defence purposes, but maybe I could offer an analogy to help them. The house is cold because the central heating is not working properly. The heating engineer quickly diagnoses restricted water flow, and after taking the appropriate action to remove sediment, the system is soon back to normal. This is really such a simple and effective solution that may not be permanent, but it works! Apparently the EA are currently considering 'River Thames re-profiling' which I am assured is not dredging. Whatever they want to call it, I urge the EA to reinstate River Thames maintenance now, otherwise the areas at risk of flooding will just continue to increase as the years go by. Yours faithfully Ewan Larcombe _____ Thamesweb: Edited purely to fix software induced line breaks...
Unregistered(d)	ALGAE COVERS JUBILEE RIVER FOR THIRD YEAR RUNNING	#6	[-]
Posts: 0 (08/04/05 05:23:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	30 July 2005 Dear Sir, I read (Maidenhead Advertiser-29/7/2005) that Thames Water was fined 132,500 last year for pollution incidents. Apparently the Environment Agency (EA) led the cases, and the EA Regional Director is quoted as saying . but it does demonstrate how committed we are to combating environmental crime. It appears to me that the hypocrites in their ivory towers at the EA continue to practice double-standards by conveniently ignoring algae growth in the Jubilee River. At the Public Inquiry in 1992, I was assured by the experts that the MWEFAS (now called the Jubilee River) would be more like a river than a swamp. For the third year in succession the Jubilee River is covered in places from bank to bank with vast areas of green algae that extend over 100m upstream. This algae accumulation is a safety hazard that is both predictable and avoidable. The EA solution last year was to allow the mass of material to be flushed into the Thames, which I find deplorable. This is undoubtedly an EA problem, but I dont suppose they will be prosecuting themselves for a pollution incident, which then leaves me with the question who polices the policeman? Yours sincerely Ewan Larcombe
Unregistered(d)	RESIDENTS NOT REPRESENTED AT IMPORTANT COUNCIL MEETING	#7	[-]
Posts: 0 (08/04/05 05:28:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	31 July 2005 Dear Sir I have suspected for some time and can now confirm that the inhabitants of Thames floodplain are not properly represented by their RBWM Councillors on the issue of flooding. I was present at the meeting of the Cabinet in Windsor Guildhall on 28 July and witnessed a number of Councillors (including the Chairman) excluded from the meeting when the subject of the revised Environment Agency flood risk maps arose. I am shocked and horrified that Borough Councillors who are properly elected to represent their communities are forced to withdraw from the meeting on the grounds of prejudicial interest because their homes are allegedly at risk of flooding. The Councillors guidance note refers to prejudicial interest as follows; If a member of the public, who knows the relevant facts, would view your personal interest in the issue being discussed to be so great that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest then you must declare that interest and leave the meeting. You must leave the room and cannot seek to influence any decisions made. It is my firm belief that those councillors who were excluded from the meeting were equally (and possibly better) qualified to deal with issues relating to flooding than those who remained. Indeed it could be argued that remaining councillors who debated and voted (i.e. those living beyond the flood plain) actually have a prejudicial interest on the basis of the value of their own homes and insurance costs. Furthermore, what will now happen at Parish Council meetings, where for example the majority of Datchet is at risk of flooding? It could be a problem if all Parish Councillors living on flood plain are prohibited from speaking and voting on matters relating to flooding and are obliged to withdraw from the meeting. Yours faithfully Ewan Larcombe
Unregistered(d)	MORE REPAIRS TO JUBILEE RIVER	#8	[-]
Posts: 0 (08/08/05 08:22:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	8 August 2005 Dear Sir Apparently the Environment Agency (EA) intends to close two footpaths on the Jubilee River (JR) in order to make repairs at Slough Weir. Their 'Notice of works' refers to 'prolonged rainfall in 2003 that created high flows and caused damage to the weir and severe erosion of the banks'. In fact any high flows that damaged the Jubilee River in January 2003 were entirely as a result of EA personnel operating the inlet flow control structure at Taplow, and even then at a flow rate significantly within the design capacity of the JR. After these repairs to the Slough Weir and embankments are complete, this 110m world class award winning scheme will still be unable to safely carry its design capacity of 215 cumecs due to its significant design and construction deficiencies. There is now evidence that the mathematical hydraulic model performance was exaggerated at the 1992 Public Inquiry. The design was then changed after construction contracts were placed in order to reduce costs. So who is paying for these repairs? I am unhappy that having already spent about 1.3m (of your money and mine) rebuilding 300m of substandard embankment in Datchet, the EA continue to spend on a flawed and substandard flood defence scheme. Indeed it is arguable that EA policy has now 'moved on' from building and maintaining flood defences to one of 'flood risk management'. For the third year in succession, the JR has suffered from the predictable and avoidable problem of algae. Both Slough Weir and Black Potts Weir are already heavily contaminated, in spite of assurances from the 'experts' at the 1992 Public Inquiry that algae would not be a problem. The EA are now apparently intending to reduce the water level downstream of Slough Weir by 0.9m, the effects of which should be interesting to observe! Yours faithfully Ewan Larcombe
Unregistered(d)	COMPLAINT TO CONTRACTORS WORKING ON JUBILEE RIVER TODAY	#9	[-]
Posts: 0 (08/25/05 09:30:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	COMPLAINT Confirming and further to our conversation of this afternoon, here is my complaint in writing. You are aware that I believe that the 110m Jubilee River is sub-standard in design, construction and performance. Repairs to failed structures commenced during the flood of January 2003, and have been ongoing since. Works are now taking place on the Jubilee River at Black Potts in Datchet and as you are also aware, I have witnessed large cranes being used to hoist equipment off Pococks Lane/Eton Road into the river. This reach (like others) is already heavily polluted with algae for the third year in succession. Apparently the intention is to reduce the level of the reach by 0.9m in order to make repairs easier to the failed Slough Weir and embankments. It is my contention that by reducing the reach level by 0.9m, local groundwater levels will be affected. I am unhappy that Datchet Parish Council (and thus the parishioners of Datchet) have not been properly notified of the intended works. The Environment Agency may well have the power to make repairs to the Jubilee River without raising a planning application, but I believe that to commence works without properly informing the local Parish Council is at best just discourteous. You will be aware that the credibility of the EA in this area is already at rock bottom; therefore failure to keep the locals informed just serves to reinforce this opinion. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Ewan Larcombe, Datchet Parish Council Flooding spokesman. Copy: Chairman and Clerk to DPC.
thamesweb	Cllr. Ewan Larcombe gets under EA's skin!	#10	[-]
Posts: 1633 (09/23/05 03:10:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	According to today's Windsor Observer (23 Sept 2005), Ewan Larcombe has been banned from complaining to the Environment Agency and from questioning them about the Jubilee River and subsequent urgent repair work. Whilst it remains to be seen what precisely lies behind this story, the EA's comment that they "would no longer respond to questions which have already been addressed" looks suspiciously like "a fit of pique" according to Ewan Larcombe. The Royal Windsor Website takes the view that Mr Larcombe's prodigious efforts in keeping the problems of the Jubilee River in the public eye are worthy of support and are to be applauded. Problems with the operation of the river the first time it was needed are now well known, as are the reasons behind the various bank collapses and potential threats to surrounding housing in Eton Wick and to the actual flooding downstream. Without his continued highlighting of the problems with the channel and his regular letters to the local press and on this forum, it is possible that we would be rather less well informed about the Jubilee River and the errors associated with its construction and operation. We look forward to Ewan Larcombe's next contribution on this forum. We need him to keep the EA on their toes!
Unregistered(d)	A SWAMP IN OUR MIDST..................	#11	[-]
Posts: 0 (09/30/05 05:17:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	27 September 2005 Dear Sir There is a saying along the lines 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck'. Well have you looked at the Jubilee River recently? Slough Weir and the nearby embankments fell apart on first use in January 2003. Substandard design and/or construction and/or operation of the scheme led to damage that needs repairing at a cost of 680,000. The 'Notice of works' refers to 'prolonged rainfall in 2003 that created high flows and caused damage to the weir and severe erosion of the banks'. In fact any high flows that damaged the Jubilee River in January 2003 were entirely as a result of Environment Agency personnel operating the inlet flow control structure at Taplow, and even then at a flow rate significantly within the design capacity of the JR. For the third year in succession, the JR has suffered from the predictable and avoidable problem of algae. The following extract is transcribed from the 1992 Public Inquiry Report (page 126) where the Inspector stated: 10.102 I consider that the flow of water in the FRC [flood relief channel] is a very important factor, not just in relation to water quality but also in relation to the appearance and character of the new channel. The carefully written Scheme brochure accompanying the planning application endorses these points. It says that the FRC would look like a natural river and would be fed at its upstream end by a small sweetening flow from the Thames and by groundwater. This brochure also states that the FRC would be operated with a minimum sweetening flow of 5 cumecs. It seems to me that the flow of water in the FRC has always been regarded by the local authorities as an essential part of the Scheme. So apparently the 110m FRC was supposed to look like a natural river! Call it a river if you like, but unfortunately my imagination has been stretched to the limit. I think it has all the characteristics of a swamp, and an expensive one at that! So if it looks like a swamp.. Yours faithfully Ewan Larcombe
Unregistered(d)	ROYAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING STATES "BEWARE COST CUTTIN	#12	[-]
Posts: 0 (10/30/05 14:30:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	29 October 2005 Dear Sir A new publication from the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) adds weight to my assertion that any public lack of confidence in the Environment Agency (EA) is entirely justified. It is almost three years since hundreds of households downstream of Windsor suffered from flooding for first time since 1947 and the EA have spent that time vociferously denying that their newly constructed 100m Jubilee River and failure to maintain the Thames exacerbated the flooding. I have previously revealed that no sooner were the MWEFAS construction contracts placed than the EA were involved with the designers and contractors in a value engineering exercise. The RAE (Professors Dodds and Venables) have now referred to the Jubilee River in their Engineering for Sustainable Development: Guiding Principles published in September. Principle 11 (of 12) states Beware cost cutting that masquerades as value engineering and makes reference to the Jubilee River by saying The wider implications of design changes made during construction may not always be easy to spot. I am unhappy because not only is the EA (funded by us) apparently responsible for sub standard design and construction, but they continue to avoid accountability. Furthermore I believe that when a planning application is approved by a Minister after being scrutinized at a Public Inquiry, surely any significant changes should be the subject of a further application and appropriate consultation. Ewan Larcombe
thamesweb	Letter to the Environment Agency 19th October 2005	#13	[-]
Posts: 1633 (10/31/05 03:35:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Many thanks for bringing this aspect to our attention. I have written to the EA myself, copy below, but have yet to receive a reply. In the absence of a response from the EA, I would welcome your comments on the questions raised. My letter read: I have been studying your flood map for Windsor. At no point that I can find, does it state the height above normal river levels that the two flood areas (shaded light blue and turquoise) are intended to illustrate. For example, the Thames at Windsor was 6'8" above normal at its highest on March 20th 1947. How does that water height compare with the EA map? At what height will water start to enter residential streets either through surcharged gullies, or as rising ground water, or around flood defences? In 1947 water entered Windsor from the west, at Windsor Racecourse. What improvements have been made upstream of Windsor, apart from the Flood Relief Channel, to defend Windsor? Will river heights be published, both actual and predicted, so that residents can decide for themselves what degree of flooding their own property is likely to experience, given that one house can be flooded, while two doors away all is fine and dandy. Can you please update me on the progress of the repairs to the Flood Relief Channel and the capacity that it now has, compared to its planned capacity during its design stages. What reduction in the levels of flooding in Windsor can be expected given, say, a 1894 flood (at 7' above normal river levels) with the Flood Relief Channel working at a safe capacity?? At what point does the Flood Relief Channel fail to provide any protection as water levels are too high for it to be effective (as seems to be the case in the screen grab below, where the course of the channel is actually under water? Also on the image above, there is a dual carriageway top left, just south of the M4 which is shown to be underwater but which is substantially raised up above any possible flood height. Are there any plans to adjust these images to reflect the fact that a portion of road will remain open and not be affected by flooding? With thanks for your observations. Editor www.theroyalwindsorwebsite.com Residents can access the EA's Flood Area maps here: Flood Maps for Windsor Edited to include EA maps link.
thamesweb	Another question re road flooding	#14	[-]
Posts: 1633 (11/02/05 09:59:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In the above map, the road from Windsor to Datchet (bottom R) over the Victoria Bridge is shown to be under water. Yet the road is raised quite significantly above the level of the Home Park. Surely this road will remain clear and usable during a flood as it did in 1947? Whilst the roads leading to and from may be flooded - but perhaps by not much - this road should remain clear allowing some sort of vehicular use. In this definitive history of the 1947 Floods, the map clearly shows the road to Datchet as not being flooded. 1947 Flood Story
Unregistered(d)	OPEN LETTER TO HRH PRINCE CHARLES	#15	[-]
Posts: 0 (11/15/05 14:58:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	15 November 2005 AN OPEN LETTER TO HRH PRINCE CHARLES Your Royal Highness, I was interested to read recent reports that both you and the Duchess of Cornwall expressed heartfelt sympathy for the unfortunate New Orleans hurricane victims, a commendable action indeed, but at least the people there received warning. It is now almost three years since hundreds of homes in the Thames area (actually just downstream of your family home on the hill in Windsor) were flooded without warning, for the first time since 1947. The Environment Agency apparently used their brand new 110m Jubilee River (JR) flood alleviation scheme to by-pass the towns of Windsor and Maidenhead and thus dump the floodwater on the villages downstream instead. The Environment Agency have now spent 1.3m repairing 300m of embankment and 680,000 repairing the Slough Weir, yet they continue to claim that any flooding downstream was purely coincidental, and deny that substandard design, construction and operation of the Jubilee River, combined with failure to dredge the River Thames since 1995 exacerbated the flooding. Flooding downstream of Windsor is no longer a natural event, now being 'managed' by Environment Agency employees who can operate the gates of a flow control structure in order to flood one section of the community rather than another. My question is can the inhabitants the villages look forward to a visit and some sympathy from you next time they suffer flooding, irrespective of the cause? Regards Ewan Larcombe Edit requested for for typo and layout
thamesweb	Re: Letter to the Environment Agency 19th October 2005	#16	[-]
Posts: 1633 (11/22/05 07:08:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Still no reply as of 22nd November 2005 other than an acknowledgement of its receipt which doesn't count! A reminder request for their comments on the original email sent on 17th November 2005. The reply has arrived exactly one month later. I am digesting its contents and will post here shortly.
Unregistered(d)	ARE THE EA FLOOD MAPS MISLEADING & INACCURATE?	#17	[-]
Posts: 0 (11/25/05 11:00:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	25th November 2005 Dear Sir, Along with many, if not most of the residents of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, I have recently had queries regarding my insurance. To try to resolve this position I requested from the Environment Agency hard copies of the latest flood maps for this area. Unfortunately, I was appalled by what I found; firstly the range covered by the maps is totally inappropriate. Those being sent out cover a 1:100 and a 1:1000 flood event. The 2003 floods have been variously stated as between a 1:25 and 1:65 year event. Is this yet another example of the Environment Agency being economical with the truth or even deliberately misleading? Worse, the flood maps seem to be widely inaccurate. If one compares the flood boundaries with the spot heights on the maps, glaring errors are evident, the edge of blue boundary coincides with spot heights between 17 and 19 metres within a similar area and on one map the flooded area seems to reach the top of the Queen Mother Reservoir, well over chimney height for Datchet. Is the Environment Agency trying to please the Irish Water Ski team, by finding them a lake with a slope? It would have been much more informative and more accurate to have sent out flood maps with the extent of the known 2003 flood events. This would have been easily verifiable from aerial photographs and videos taken at the time of the last flood. With something as important as this, as it seriously affects the value of our homes, we surely deserve the best and most accurate information available, unless the intention is to deceive, as appeared to be the case over the misoperation of the Jubilee River in 2003. Yours faithfully Jim Wanamaker
Unregistered(d)	MICHAEL HOWARD SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT IN 1993	#18	[-]
Posts: 0 (12/04/05 04:46:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	4 December 2005 Sir Now that Michael Howard MP has relinquished his position as Leader of the Conservative Party I can reveal that he was Secretary of State for the Environment when the Inspectors Report on the 1992 MWEFAS Public Inquiry was presented to the Government in April 1993. (John Gummer MP was Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the same time.) Mr Howard should now have more time available, so maybe he could consider looking into how a proposal that traversed his desk over twelve years ago and was then built by the Environment Agency (EA) went so wrong. Funded through the Thames Region Flood Defence Committee at a cost to the public purse of 110m and now called the Jubilee River, the scheme fell apart on first use. Currently unable to carry its design capacity due to design and construction shortcomings and with repairs ongoing into 2006, the EA are now apparently planning to survey the Jubilee River channel bed. Need I say any more? Yours faithfully Ewan Larcombe
Unregistered(d)	RBWM COMPLETE "U" TURN?..............	#19	[-]
Posts: 0 (01/01/06 12:08:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	1st January 2006 Dear Sir It may be a something in the season, or possibly the effects of their new (and expensive) Council Chamber but at long last our representatives at the RBWM appear to have not only 'seen the light' but also completed a full 180 degree 'U' turn. It is three years since hundreds of homes were affected by Thames flooding for the first time since 1947, and the role of the Environment Agency's sub-standard 110m MWEFAS flood defence is at last accepted by RBWM. Eventually replacing the current RBWM 'Local Plan', a Local Development Framework document entitled 'A Vision for the Royal Borough' is being prepared for consultation. Approximately 10% of the Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan: Preferred Options document relates to development in flood risk areas, and the section on 'Development within areas protected from flooding by defences' is particularly interesting. 5.2.38 states: Development on land protected by flood defences (e.g. The Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton Flood Alleviation Scheme (MWEFAS) and the Lower Colne Flood Alleviation Scheme) will require a detailed assessment of the flood alleviation measures already in place, of their state of maintenance and their performance. The RBWM now acknowledge that existing flood defences may not work, and that continued construction will not be sustainable in the long term. Isn't it ironic that as the level of confidence in Environment Agency flood defences continues on the trend towards zero, that same establishment may be charging you for the production of a flood risk assessment? Yours faithfully Ewan Larcombe
Unregistered(d)	A NEW ART FORM FROM THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY??.........	#20	[-]
Posts: 0 (01/08/06 10:46:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	8th January 2006 Dear Sir Maskirovka* is alive and well, and indeed the Environment Agency (EA) is now developing the practice into an art form. Aided and abetted by other authorities, including the Thames Region Flood Defence Committee (RFDC), the obfuscation and filibustering continues unabated on the 110m Jubilee River (JR) fiasco. Recent publications from the EA disinformation department include a revised JR operating procedure and yet another set of River Thames flood risk maps, both of which are of questionable quality and value, except of course to the insurance companies who will be demanding increased premiums because your home is shown within the flood risk area. (If you are unhappy with your increased premiums, I believe you can obtain more detailed flood risk information directly from the EA but predictably this service is not free.) Did you know that in mid 2004 Defra circulated and invited responses to a strategy consultation document that considered the adverse human and economic consequences of flooding? Called 'Making Space for Water' the main themes were risk management, the sustainable approach, planning and building, and public awareness. Open for comments for a three month period that closed on November 1 2004, by accident or design the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead apparently neither submitted a response themselves nor passed the document on to their Parish Councils. So what good is a nationwide consultation on flooding if it fails to reach those people who are most affected? *Maskirovka - a Soviet military term for disinformation and deception. Yours faithfully Ewan Larcombe