Yuku free message boards

14th January 2006

Sir

The Jubilee River has proved to have been a huge and costly disaster.

Had the scheme being built as promised by the 1992 public inquiry it might well have worked.

The link between land for the scheme, and the Eton rowing lake might have made the scheme nearly self funding from the sale of gravel or so it was said at the time unfortunately gravel prices plunged midway through the scheme.

In a bewildering display of arrogance and incompetence a cost-cutting exercise (Value Engineering!) changed the specification of many of the vital aspects, including amongst other mistakes, substituting hard, piled walls with (much cheaper) soft earth banks along much of its length.

The earth walls had started to erode and fail even before the 2003 floods, a fact known to the Environment Agency in November 2002. This resulted in failure to operate the Jubilee River correctly.

The Jubilee River Design Intent is to open the Jubilee River ahead of the main peak, and thus attenuate (lower) the height of the main flood, by running off water ahead of the main surge. Instead the EA waited until they realized that Maidenhead was about to flood, thus making themselves look complete fools, having just spent all that money. At this point the gates were opened in panic - too much and too late! - coinciding with the peak of the approaching flood.

A huge cover up then followed. The public Flood forums and the FRAG succeeded in muddying the waters. Accurate data was, not surprisingly, very difficult to obtain since only the EA had access to the few gauges and readings that had not failed and Lock Keepers were sworn to silence. Thus it took almost three years of exhausting research, analysis of photographic and other evidence, and the eventual release of reports from WS Atkins and others to prove many of the FRAGs findings were wrong, and that the Jubilee River had done exactly what everyone downstream had said all along. It made the flood much worse in Datchet, Wraysbury, Old Windsor and downstream.

Many more millions of pounds are still being poured into the Jubilee River (excuse the pun) to repair and reprieve a scheme which, even after close to 120million has been spent, will probably never carry its design capacity, or work as it was intended. Isnt it time the EA took responsibility for this fiasco?

Yours faithfully

Jim Wanamaker

10th January 2006

Dear Sir

Re: The Jubilee River and flooding issues

During July 2001 the Government published a guideline document PPG25 in which was stated, "The key policy aim is to ensure that flood risk is properly taken into account in the planning of new developments to reduce
the risk of flooding and the damage that floods cause." The Jubilee River Scheme was a new development, so what went wrong?

Clearly there are major problems with the Jubilee River construction. Slough Weir has been rebuilt, Datchet Embankment replaced and reinforced and the Datchet Bend does not comply with structural guidelines. There have been numerous bank collapses, major structural rebuilding at bridges and at Taplow Sluices. Regarding the evaluation of Black Potts Viaduct capacity, this is only part of the structural defects menu.

There is to be a review of local flood protection of Strande Lane and Lower Cookham Road. The list is nearly endless, on top of which several kilometres of embankment require to be raised. At West Town footbridge the bank is 250 mm below the design height. The result is that at present the Jubilee River is only capable of taking just over 50% of its intended design
capacity; a capacity that is in doubt as the Environment Agency are to conduct a bathymetric survey to determine what the current capacity actually is.

The design was changed after being granted planning approval and instead of being a lined channel is now embanked by unreinforced underburden excavated
from the land itself. The EA have admitted that groundwater effects were not taken into account at the design stage and at the Public Enquiry in 1992. The unreinforced embankments appear to be dissolving into the Jubilee River in places, where liquification occurs. Another item that appears to be endless is cost from the public purse in resolving this extraordinary catalogue of failures all relating back to design. An open letter to one of the lead designers currently holding an eminent position within a structural institute was recently published in the Windsor Express, asking to explain why basic design considerations were not accounted for, has been met with unacceptable silence.

The EA have always denied responsibility for flooding at Windsor and downstream in 2003. However, by the persistence of residents they have admitted misinformation and misoperation of the Jubilee River in 2003.

Community Support Group South and ThamesAwash have provided and the EA have now confirmed and issued their identical figures within their recently
published operating procedures.

There is now no doubt that misoperation did substantially increase water height and the extent of flooding at Windsor and downstream in 2003. Residents and flood victims, who stated this, are thus fully vindicated in their views. The immediate priority required by all residents is protection from flooding and misoperation of the Jubilee River System. Both requirements are immediate and not in ten to twenty years time.

The EA have recently stated that they are to consider re-profiling the River Thames and thus increasing its flood containment capacity. Both CSG South and ThamesAwash support this proposal and urge the EA to pursue this with all speed.

To ensure that re-profiling and any other flood defences are not compromised, the operating instructions of the Jubilee River require to be correct, complete and unambiguous with all EA employees fully trained and
conversant with a qualified procedure.

Unfortunately, the latest EA document does not meet the above criteria. The most important element of closing down the Jubilee River is missing and therefore the misoperation of 2003 could be duplicated. Following 2003 the duty of care sits heavily on the Environment Agency's shoulders. Therefore CSG South have recommended that the EA obtain professional assistance to provide the quality of document and guide to which the public are entitled. All this is needed to ensure safe operation of any intended Lower Thames Channel and in the shorter term prevent compromising the profiling project.

A number of inaccurate flood maps have been issued by the EA. These are posing problems with councils, developers and residents alike, which resulted in severe castigation upon the professional competence of the EA,
which is further added to by their correspondence confirming that a 1:65 year flood event, upon which the Jubilee River Scheme is based, does not exist and the EA do not have a map of the 2003 flood event, even though all the data is available. Thus the Environment Agency's basis for claims of property saved at Maidenhead and those properties that experienced some form of flooding from Windsor and downstream in 2003 is questionable.

A flood map of the 2003 event is urgently required in order that all parties have a base line to understand and relate to future proposals and especially residents concerned with insurance negotiation.

There are a number of unresolved issues relating to the flawed scheme. However, in the final analysis the Jubilee River construction appears to be questionable as to its long term integrity and is unlikely to ever provide
its specified protection. Therefore responsibility and accountability must be publicly acknowledged by those persons, who were paid substantial fees for their involvement, which appears to be involving unending costs to council tax payers and public funds.

Yours faithfully

IAN THOMPSON
CSG South Committee Member

CC: Adam Afriyie MP
Tom Crossett - Chairman Thames Flood Forum
Ewan Larcombe - Chairman CSG South

17 March 2006

Dear Sir

On 1st April the Environment Agency (EA) will have been in existence for ten years, so I would like to take this opportunity not only to wish them 'Happy Birthday', but also to list some of their memorable achievements to date.

The entire length of their 110m Jubilee River project suffered severe structural damage on first use in January 2003. Design and construction shortcomings incurred repair costs of 2m to the Slough Weir and the Myrke
embankment in Datchet. Still awaiting further repairs, the scheme is currently unable to convey the design capacity of 215 cubic metres of flood water per second. Taplow flood gate operating instructions have still to be
agreed, with the issue of liability awaiting consideration. Despite assurances given at the 1992 Public Inquiry, the Jubilee River has been a breeding ground for algae every year. Surely the EA should consider prosecuting themselves for pollution, or do they operate double standards?

Using a combination of obfuscation and filibustering, the EA have successfully repelled accusations that their use of the Jubilee River exacerbated flooding downstream of Windsor. The EA will also have saved many millions of pounds by terminating (in the mid 1990s) the Thames
dredging for flood defence purposes that had taken place since the floods of 1947. The EA are apparently responsible for the Thames but have no duty to
maintain it for flood defence purposes. The Thames is just a drain, and unfortunately the issue of aggradation leading to bed rise flooding as a consequence of cessation of dredging has now been raised, and will be
difficult to explain away.

Finally, with the publication of their new flood maps and scaremongering on flood warnings, the EA have had a significant impact on property values and insurance costs, and a permanent detrimental impact on the physical and mental health of the inhabitants of flood plain downstream of Windsor.

Happy Birthday EA.

Yours faithfully

Ewan Larcombe

20th June 2006

Sir

We understand the Environment Agency has begun legal proceedings against Lewin Fryer and Partners, the designers of the Jubilee River.

At last the Environment Agency is admitting that the flood alleviation scheme is flawed.

Our concern is that this is the first stage towards trying to settle all this privately behind closed doors. We believe this to be totally unacceptable.

There was a massive overspend on this project, 10 million had to be spent on alterations and repairs and the scheme is still only operating at 84% capacity.

This is public money which has been used to build a scheme which fell to pieces on first use.

People need to be answerable for mistakes that included Datchet being left unprotected.

It has taken 3 years of lobbying to finally get a protective wall built at Black Potts so that Datchet is not flooded again. The design ignored the existence of a gulley with the result that all the water went straight into Datchet village in 2003.

The list of design defects on the Jubilee River is horrendous, it should not be resolved between solicitors behind closed doors because it is public money and any recovery must go back into the public purse.

People in this area have a right to know what is going on and who is responsible.

We would also like to state on the record that contrary to what the Environment Agency has said at this point in time we do not believe the MWEFAS Operating Procedures are fit for purpose.

Yours faithfully

Ian Thompson
Thames Flood Forum Committee Member
CSG South Committee Member
ThamesAwash Committee Member

__________

Edited for minor typo.

21st July 2006

Sir

OPEN LETTER TO THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

Datchet Parish Councillor Ewan Larcombe has been informed by the Environment Agency that it will no longer discuss the Jubilee River algae problem with him, as it considers the matter has been closed by previous correspondence.

This attitude by the E.A. is unacceptable, irresponsible and arrogant. Mr Larcombe has a duty as a Parish Councillor to raise matters of public health & safety because of the problem of algae infestation each year. The E.A. also has a duty to resolve the problem which it caused by its "cost saving redesign" of the Jubilee River. Algae growth can contain poisonous strains, especially in conditions of low water flow, high water temperatures, combined with pesticide chemicals leaching into a non-contained water course - exactly the current conditions.

The Jubilee River is officially designated within the E.A. brochure as "recreational" and accessible to the public throughout its length. Assurances were given to us at the 1992 Public Enquiry that the present algae situation would not occur. Despite that assurance it has for the last five years, and is likely to provide an escalating midsummer health hazard into the foreseeable future. The recreational aspect is now lost beneath an unsightly blanket of weed, with all of the visual aspect of a prize winning miasmic swamp, which is especially noticeable from the M4 Motorway.

Additional to the health and visual aspects, it is of concern that plant growth at the river margins is increasing together with the abundance of dense bottom weed which can be seen extending considerably each year. Both of these factors will inevitably have an increasing impact on the ability for the channel to conduct the designated water flow in times of flood as accumulations of silt and weed debris build up on the channel bed. This could result in a latent design defect issue if it is not immediately addressed.





Furthermore, the E.A. has responded to concerns expressed on the above subject by stating within its recent Briefing Note that it hopes to contain weed growth by sinking straw bales into the Jubilee River, intending the decomposing straw to chemically inhibit weed growth. The result of this process will, over time, add to the channel flow restrictions.

The visual impact of the weed accumulation highlighted by "The Windsor Observer" newspaper photograph is increased due to the type of protective weir boom employed by the E.A. Another aspect it should investigate to enable weed dispersal into faster flowing and agitated water.

Clearly Mr Larcombe has the right and reason to continue to question the E.A. on its algae policy, such as has been noted within this open letter. The E.A., however, has a duty to the public regarding health and safety issues as well as a responsibility to account for its actions and costs relating to mis-design issues. It is, after all - funded with public money where it is currently continuously attending to post construction issues and, therefore, should not adopt an "ostrich" avoidance policy but must continue to answer Mr Larcombe as both a Parish Councillor as well as his role as Chairman of the Community Support Group South.

It is the concern of CSG South and ThamesAwash members who have read the E.A. algae briefing note that in all aspects it is so negative. In our opinion this clearly demonstrates the need for the E.A. to take professional advice regarding these serious problems.

There has been, for some time, doubt regarding the expertise of the E.A. personnel dealing with the M.W.E.F.A.S. issues and this doubt appears to be justified following receipt of a recent letter addressed to Mr Larcombe from Mr Robert Runcie, the Director for the Thames Region of the E.A. in which he describes the Jubilee River as "a wonderful environment and recreational asset", where "the current conditions may naturally lead to algae growth" and "I believe is looking excellent at the moment". Clearly his views of the weed blocked and rubbish locked watercourse is not the world of reality or, more likely, the E.A. even at its higher levels is unable to, or prefers not to, comprehend it own self-caused problem.

My colleagues and I, therefore, have no option but to continue to hold the E.A. to account in order to resolve these issue, it must resume dialogue with Mr Larcombe if it wants to avoid further ridicule and embarrassment. More seriously, if it wants to avoid possible claims for avoidable health and safety issues.

Yours faithfully

Ian Thompson

Committee Member:
CSG South
Thames Awash
Thames Flood Forum

__________

Edited to include photographs taken by Mr Larcombe. 01.08.2006

Sir

Four More Months of Winter and Four years Since the Flooding

In January 2003, many thousands of people near the Thames downstream of Windsor were affected by flooding for the first time in over fifty years. It is now blatantly obvious why the Minister responsible at the time (Elliot Morley MP) refused to hold a Public Inquiry into the role of the Environment Agency and their Jubilee River flood channel.

Since the flood event, evidence has emerged that almost the entire length of the Jubilee River sustained structural damage. The EA recently celebrated a multi-million pound out-of-court settlement with the JR designers, conveniently overlooking details such as that the compensation failed to even cover the cost of repairs. In particular the design capacity shortfall reduced the level of protection, thus undermining the original cost/benefit justification of the 110m scheme.

The EA have neglected dredging the Thames (for flood defence purposes) since they took over from the NRA in 1995, and are now spending their time extending the list of excuses as to why they should not re-instate maintenance dredging. The most recent (and bizarre) excuse is the Depressed River Mussel at Staines. In my opinion, people must come first, and the end result of failure to maintain watercourses is the increased probability of flooding.

Since the flood event, the EA have vociferously maintained that their JR Operating Procedure was faultless, in spite of claims that the procedure was fundamentally flawed, and therefore detrimental to the downstream villages. However the EA recently revealed that they are now, at last, having the procedure independently assessed.

Finally what really infuriates me is that after four years of vociferous denial and smug arrogance from the EA, the individuals responsible for the mistakes and costly (public money) fiasco continue to evade any personal responsibility.

Yours faithfully

Ewan Larcombe