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

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

The Flood Relief Channel - Jubilee River - Part I

Author	Comment
thamesweb	The Flood Relief Channel - Jubilee River - Part I	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1307 (01/16/04 05:41:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None Please note - this thread, hosted by Ezboard, along with thousands of others world-wide, suffered a devastating attack on all Ezboard discussion areas at the end of May 2005. It seems a disgruntled employee deleted all threads and BUs. This thread has been reconstructed from remaining archives as best as possible but a few comments may have been permanently lost. We received the following on Friday 16th January 2004 --------------------------- PRESS RELEASE WRAYSBURY FLOODING ENVIRONMENT AGENCY LEAVES RESIDENTS FLOUNDERING Wraysbury (Staines) was one of the many Thames-side villages that suffered the worse floods for more than fifty years in January 2003. 12 months after the flooding, a number of local residents still havent been able to return to their houses as flood damage repairs are not completed and they continue to live in fear of further flooding, conscious that the Environment Agency responsible for management of the River Thames has done nothing to alleviate their plight. In desperation, a group of 14 residents (mainly from Residents Associations in roads affected by the 2003 flooding and thus representing a far wider section of the community) signed a letter addressed to the Parish Council Chairman requesting a Public Meeting be called and that our MP, the senior area executive of the Environment Agency (EA) and the Chief Executive of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (RBWM), together with the two Borough Councillors sitting on the FRAG (Flood Risk Action Group a committee set up in place of a public enquiry by the EA in consultation with the RBWM to examine cause and effect of the 2003 floods) be invited to answer the following questions: What caused the excessive floods of 2003? What short term measures have been taken to minimise further flooding? What long term actions are being considered to prevent future flooding? What emergency measures have been put in place in the event of another flood? This meeting was held on 12th January 2004 in Wraysbury Village Hall. However, despite being given 8 weeks notice of the date and time of the meeting, the Environment Agency (having a duty of care to the public in respect of river management) refused to put forward a representative to attend. Their attitude as public servants, in failing to attend a meeting called to give them the opportunity to communicate what actions they have taken to address the questions (above) is hard to fathom unless, of course, they have something to hide in terms of the manner in which the river was managed in late December 2002/early January 2003 or that no actions have actually been taken. These questions and many others (Insurance problems, increased premiums or insurance being refused, loss of property values conservatively estimated in excess of 30 million in Wraysbury and Old Windsor alone) remain outstanding a year later and will blight the Wraysbury and surrounding areas for many years to come. Michael Trend, MP was able to attend, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead were able to put forward a representative, along with our elected local Councillors but the empty chair set aside for the Environment Agency spoke most eloquently on their behalf. BACKGROUND It is considered that these floods were due, in part, to the affect of the Jubilee River a flood alleviation scheme that kept Windsor and Maidenhead dry but, local residents believe, caused severe flooding below Windsor. The severity of the flooding was possibly/probably due to mismanagement by the Environment Agency in that the major increase in river levels occurred during the Christmas and New Year Holiday periods - a period when an Environment Agency spokesman stated that "the river is out of control" Since that time, no remedial work appears to have been done on any stretch of the river to prevent a reoccurrence of the January 2003 flooding. Similarly, little or no information has been forthcoming from the Environment Agency or the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead on actions taken to prevent future flooding. Instead Wraysbury residents have learned that Windsor and Maidenhead have now been effectively taken out of the designated flood plain whilst, at the same time, there is talk of the flood plain around Wraysbury being extended! We can only assume that we are to be sacrificially flooded more regularly for the protection of Windsor and Maidenhead. Naturally, Wraysbury residents (who pay their Council Taxes to the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead) consider they have been treated very differently to those Borough residents who now have the flood protection afforded by the flood alleviation scheme. Quite apart from the illogical decision to implement a flood alleviation scheme upriver of stretches of the Thames incapable of taking greater flow capacity, it appears we are being discriminated against; our peaceful right of enjoyment of our own homes being prejudiced by the probability of more frequent flooding. In the May 2003 Council Elections, Wraysbury residents, along with some other Thames-side communities gave a strong indication of their concern regarding the manner in which the flooding (and its aftermath) were dealt with by failing to re-elect long standing Councillors, returning instead Independent candidates who were in touch with local concerns and who could be trusted to take the community issues to the seat of local government. For further information contact Doug Brown - 01784 482639/01784 482536, Mike Howard - 01784 488467, Freddie Pilditch - 01784 483933, Gillie Bolton 01753 866838 END
Unregistered(d)	The Environment Agency Fails Wraysbury	#1	[-]
Posts: 0 (01/21/04 09:47:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Residents of Wraysbury feel completely abandoned by the Environment Agency who failed to attend a public meeting called by local residents to try to ascertain what actions have been taken since the disastrous floods of January 2003. Twelve month after this event, which most residents believe was exacerbated by the newly opened Jubilee River, the local population in Wraysbury are still trying to find out what is going to be done to protect them from future flooding. Homeowners in Wraysbury now live in constant fear that prolonged heavy rain will result in a repeat of last year's flooding - a situation that would have seen the whole village inundated if levels had risen by just a few more inches. Many residents believe that the Environment Agency's failure to attend is a clear demonstration that it has something to hide in respect of its management of the River Thames and Jubilee River in the 10-12 days leading up to the peak flood levels on 5th January 2003. Many also feel that the Agency is using the establishment of the Flood Risk Action Groups charged with investigating the causes (based on data provided by and funded by the Environment Agency) to avoid facing their responsibilities to provide efficient and safe management and control of the River Thames. Our local MP, Mr Michael Trend, the Deputy Leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, the 2 Borough Councillors who sit on the FRAG, senior council staff as well as the local Parish Chairman all attended the public meeting on the 12th January 2004 along with almost 400 concerned people from the riverside community - but where was the senior area executive of the Environment Agency? OR FOR THAT MATTER ANYONE FROM THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY? Maybe the empty chairs spoke most eloquently for them? Perhaps the Environment Agency were sitting back comfortable in the knowledge that they have provided protection to the homes of a few well known people living by the Thames at Maidenhead and Bray - and never mind the effect caused to the many hundreds flooded in the unfortunate communities living downstream of the Jubilee River. It is interesting to note that the Environment Agency had time to organise a Flood Fair at Woking on 18th January but did not have the time or the inclination to attend the Public Meeting the week before, despite being given 8 weeks notice of the event. Yours faithfully M G H Wraysbury
Unregistered(d)	The Big Flood Cover Up Continues	#2	[-]
Posts: 0 (01/28/04 11:46:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	How gullible do they think we are? The JMP's report on January's disastrous floods states that the main cause was the "sustained rainfall over the three-month period ." Depending upon which set of statistics one reads the rainfall may have been slightly more in 2003 than in the 2000. If however according to at least one set of statistics the rainfall was actually LESS in 2003 (332.6 mm against the 338.4 mm in 2000 for the preceding three months) then why were the floods so bad? Remarkably floods were at least two foot higher in our area than they were in 2000. Could this be because of Jubilee River? - We are assured not! Neither the Environment Agency nor the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead have much more than the faintest idea of the flood flows and levels at the time of worst flooding because many of the ultrasonic monitoring stations and level gauges were overwhelmed by the floods they were supposed to measure! Not only this but partly because the flood levels were so high the water by-passed the monitoring stations by flowing across fields and through our houses. There were many factors involved but please don't tell me it wasn't the Jubilee River because I won't believe it! The Environment Agency who built the Jubilee River and David Lunn, Chief Executive of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead welcome the report - What a surprise! What chance have we got that they will admit that the computer model, on which they pinned their hopes, was hopelessly wrong. These days we don't expect politicians or big organisations like the Environment Agency to admit to mistakes - How could they? The claims for damage and insurance would be immense. Can we not at least have something done to protect the houses downstream of the "Jubilee Flood Creation Scheme." - Any senior school pupil should be able to tell you that flood prevention schemes are always started at the seaward end of a river - Anything else just shifts the problem downstream. The original design document for the Jubilee River also clearly stated this. Thousands of householders downstream from the Jubilee River now face the prospect of being flooded again by this misconceived scheme, not to mention the millions lost in the value of their houses and in the insurance claims. Even though so many residents did not dare claim because of the insurance position and the fear of becoming uninsurable. We have no chance of anyone "owning up" to their mistakes. Please can we see something done to protect downstream victims of this Jubilee Fiasco who now fear for their future?
Unregistered(d)	Jubilee River Computer Model was Wrong?	#3	[-]
Posts: 0 (01/30/04 07:15:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The JMP report identified that the Jubilee River enabled floodwater to travel more quickly between Boulters (Maidenhead) and Old Windsor (Wraysbury) than that in the Thames channel. I believe, because it was not in their brief, JMP did not address the effect of sending 52 cumecs down the Jubilee River in the space of 12 hours, this being over one third of the total stated flow in this channel of 144 cumecs. I also do not believe JMP addressed the effect that this large volume of unattenuated water would have at convergence. Would it create an unnatural rise in Thames flows? We read from reports that the small predicted increase in river level at the downstream end of the Jubilee River due to its operation was considered to be acceptable by HM Inspector at the time of the public enquiry. The question to answer is - Was there a modelling scenario of a release of 52 cumecs in the space of 12 hours or a scenario of the effect of 37 cumecs being released in one instance on the 4th January 2003? Were either of these scenarios encapsulated in the original modelling or any of the subsequent modelling? Were there any predictions of the effects this large volume of fast flowing water would have on the Jubilee River construction in any of the modelling? It would appear by the damage sustained to this new river channel there has been error, omission and negligence. Perhaps while we are waiting for the full flooding report the Environment Agency might like to answer these questions?
Unregistered(d)	Fear of Further Flooding	#4	[-]
Posts: 0 (02/03/04 06:42:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I am a widow in my seventies and have lived beside the River Thames for 50 years. Last year I had to be evacuated down the road in a boat by one of my sons when I was flooded by the operation of the Jubilee River! Please do not try to tell me that it was just the rain or groundwater or any of the other excuses the Environment Agency has been using. The River Thames behaved in a totally different way to the way it has behaved for the past 40 years and more. It came up and went down much more quickly and other residents living downstream of Datchet to whom I have spoken know it was the new "FLOOD CREATION SCHEME!" We believe it was the way it was managed and operated which caused our misery - It was NOT natural causes. Every time it now rains I live in fear of it happening again. I have always felt my home was my castle but now I feel so vulnerable. The Environment Agency tells me it's my responsibility and to invest in flood protection measures - none of which would be effective if they open the Jubilee River again. I cannot even pull up the drawbridge! What has the Environment Agency done since last year's flooding to help me and all the hundreds of other residents in the same situation? One has to conclude - NOTHING! Why has the river not been dredged? I can remember dredgers regularly working on the Thames. I believe there were sixteen of them - now it seems there is just one! What about a proper flood relief channel right down to the tidal Thames? Please protect me like the people of Maidenhead who are now protected by the Jubilee River.
Unregistered(d)	Still waiting for answers	#5	[-]
Posts: 0 (02/05/04 03:15:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It is now over a year since many hundreds of homes were affected by flooding from The Thames, and still we wait for answers. The predictable absence of the Environment Agency from the meeting in Wraysbury last week suggests that they are still busily concocting their justification for neglecting dredging and then moving the floodwater elsewhere. Can I suggest that the Environment Agency make time to study The Sunday Times article dated 18 January 2004 titled 'Homes on stilts', in which it is stated that 'the Jubilee River has effectively changed the flood plain in the area'. Unfortunately the article overlooks the fact that operating at only 60% of capacity, the entire length of the award winning 100m Jubilee River was damaged in January 2003. This raises the question as to who pays the 2m bill for substandard design, construction and/or operation? As for the future, in my opinion, the Jubilee River is unsafe, and should not be used until deemed 'fit for purpose' by an independent authority.
Unregistered(d)	You can flood some of people some of the time...	#6	[-]
Posts: 0 (02/11/04 02:59:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You can fool some of people some of the time but do the Environment Agency really think we are that gullible? The Environment Agency are just about to release a report which we anticipate will - Surprise! Surprise! - exonerate the Jubilee River from all blame in the floods just over a year ago. Residents living downstream from the Jubilee River have collected a great deal of information, data and photographic evidence which they believe will contradict the report. Most of these residents are convinced that the "Jubilee River Flood Creation Scheme" and the way it was operated played a major role in exacerbating the floods. This not only made their lives a misery but knocked thousands and thousands of pounds from the value of their homes. An independent estimate suggests that 30 million has been lost from the value of houses in the Wraysbury and Old Windsor area alone. We know it is fashionable at the moment for Government Agencies to deny and whitewash what everyone else believes to be true! Not only this, but we also realise that the Environment Agency will never admit responsibility because of the huge bill for compensation which they would face. No! What we want is for the flood scheme to be extended as soon as possible to where it should have been put in the first place - The Tidal Thames. Original schemes were ruled out by what the Environment Agency called a "cost benefit analysis" - What a farce! - In their analysis they only included 130 houses as being flooded. The true figure is probably nearer to 2,000 homes down the Thames that suffered damage. More importantly, the Environment Agency do not include the considerable blight in loss of value and difficulty in obtaining insurance which has made these previously very desirable homes difficult to sell. Ask any of the owners who have lost 100,000 or 200,000 on the value of their homes what their "cost benefit analysis" is? It is an infringement of these owners' human rights to have played "God" with the river in deciding to flood one region at the expense of another. We are only asking - no demanding - that we are given the same protection from flooding as those houses in Maidenhead who are now protected by the Jubilee River.
Unregistered(d)	The Environment Agency and its 'Jubilee' River	#7	[-]
Posts: 0 (02/17/04 04:30:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Is it true the Environment Agency are handing out little sugar coated goodies?!! They tell us that a flood relief scheme like the Jubilee River could ACTUALLY be built right down to the "Tidal" Thames at Teddington. When the Jubilee River was being planned the design documents stated that flood relief schemes should always be started at the seaward end. By not following this dictum serious flooding occurred either side of Windsor and Maidenhead. Sadly, No-one in the E.A. seems to accept a mistake was made. There are two schemes: the Jubilee River and the proposed "Lower Thames Study". Both score roughly the same on the Environment Agency's "cost benefit analysis." In their new "multi-coloured manual" however we find that underneath the sugar cane coating is a bitter pill. On purely economic grounds any of the levels of protection for the new scheme, from 1 : 18 to 1 : 100 - that is protection against a 1 in 100 year flood could go ahead. Unfortunately DEFRA who would agree funding for any new scheme would rule it out for several reasons; principally that not many people would be expected to die in the event of the Thames flooding and secondly that houses on the Thames do not qualify as belonging to the socially needy. Houses were desperately expensive on the Thames but many have lost 15% or more on their value. If one assumes an average value of 300,000 to 400,000 then the average loss is in the order of 35,000, but in many cases is it much more? - Remember the Paul Daniels story. These previously desirable houses are now difficult to insure and even more difficult to sell. Many of the residents are elderly and to them their houses represent the cumulative effort of years of hard work, as well as both their pensions and their security for their old age. The cost benefit analysis on which the Environment Agency and DEFRA base their policies only takes into account the cost of actual damage, carpets etc., but avoids financial responsibility because the insurance companies pick up the bills. So, residents in flood plain suffer yet again with increased premiums and excesses. This can only happen in Britain when a Government Dept (mis)manages river flow, causing millions of pounds worth of damage and yet is in no way financially liable. Meanwhile the argument continues with the Environment Agency who have still to produce a report of the events of 14 months ago, let alone any action to rectify contributing factors to the subsequent flooding. We are still at risk, therefore, and fear of being flooded again, by the Jubilee River. Jubilation for who?
Unregistered(d)	Oh, what a tangled flood we weave...	#8	[-]
Posts: 0 (02/17/04 04:58:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	We believe the effects of flooding downriver could have been mitigated by a more judicious operation and control of the Jubilee River. This observation is based on information supplied by the Environment Agency for the 2003 flood event. It is known some properties were flooded internally by as little as 4 inches. With a higher degree of control some of these properties could have escaped the internal flooding. It was the surge of water in the Jubilee River on the 4th January 2003 which caused a sudden rise at convergence with the Thames flow. Was it necessary to release such a large volume of water in such a narrow time frame? Had this flow been stemmed and levels raised at Maidenhead by 0.3 metre or 1 foot how many properties in Maidenhead would have been flooded? This would have still been nearly ONE FOOT BELOW the 2000 flood figures and reduced the effects of the surge. The Environment Agency said the Thames flow was 260 cumecs for the event. Is there an anomaly or is it a question of timing on the Maidenhead website (www.maidenhead.net/news/floods2003) where they show a flow reading of 285 cumecs at the bridge? The most interesting feature on page 3 of this website is the picture of the car in the car park. In my opinion with a level one foot less the driver could have walked to his car and removed it. Have the Environment Agency acted in contravention of its own doctrine? - 1. "The storage capacity associated with flood plains must not be reduced." 2. "It is preferable to avoid risk from flooding through control than to alleviate problems once they occur." 3. "Watercourses must not be obstructed." 4. "The number of people at risk of flooding must not be increased." A number of people were experiencing flooding for the first time in 2003 and were amazed by the sudden rise in the River Thames. The operation of the Jubilee River created an imbalance in the Thames flow, historical records of previous events bear out this summary.
Unregistered(d)	Jubilee River In Trouble?	#9	[-]
Posts: 0 (02/21/04 09:32:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In a statement dated 2nd February 2004 which was issued by Lisa Wigmore, an Environment Agency spokesperson, it states: "Following completion of the remedial and landscaping works the Environment Agency has returned normal flow to the Jubilee River." Was Lisa Wigmore misinformed as I have been in the past or was she having an aberration? If you visit bridge 18 on the A332 where it spans the Jubilee River, you will see just below the spill weir upstream in the left hand embankment a large void covered by black plastic sheeting. Is this what is described as completed and landscaped? While on the subject of this embankment a large section just above this weir could slide into the river during the next major flow down the Jubilee River. It also states: "The Jubilee River, part of the Maidenhead, Eton and Windsor flood alleviation scheme, is the largest river diversion scheme of its kind in the country. It was designed to alleviate flooding to those areas flooded in the Great Floods of 1947, when 2,000 homes were flooded." Is this implying Datchet, Wraysbury, Old Windsor and all the areas downriver were not affected in 1947? I can assure her they were and again in 2003 readings were only 4ins below 1947 levels at Penton Hook. We should be concerned for the safety of the elderly and invalids in the event that this new river is ever operated at its stated capacity of 215 cumecs. This would raise river levels from normal to between 10ft 4ins and 12ft downriver of Windsor. If this were to happen these vulnerable peoples' lives could be put at risk; not just from the high water levels but a loss of electricity and heating; in a cold spell this could endanger their lives from hypothermia. B E Smith Staines
Unregistered(d)	Environment Agency finally comes clean on JR capacity	#10	[-]
Posts: 0 (02/24/04 07:23:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Despite having publicly affirmed on several occasions last Autumn that the Jubilee River was safe to use to its full design capacity, and would be operated at 100% capacity if needed, the Environment Agency (EA) has admitted for the first time that the river has serious design and construction faults which mean that it may not cope safely with as much floodwater as planned. The Agency has also confirmed that it first had doubts about the capacity of the flood channel as long ago as the January 2003 floods. Up until this admission it had insisted that the scheme could handle the full volume of water that it was designed to manage. Last year the EA called in consultants W.S. Atkins to investigate the river after concern over the structural stability of parts of the scheme. This investigation was prompted by serious damage to the banks during the last floods, even though the flood channel was only used to about 65% of capacity. The consultants have now advised the agency that the project may currently only be safely used to 80% of the capacity that it was originally designed to cope with. Publication of the results of the Atkins report has been demanded for some time by campaign group, ThamesAwash. In response to this, the Environment Agency has now agreed to release extracts relating to the impact of damage caused by the January 2003 floods and its capacity. These will highlight damage to the banks at both MillMill House Lane, Taplow and Black Potts which will not be repaired until Summer 2004. The Environment Agency has given assurances that the damaged banks are under constant surveillance and that emergency contingency plans have been prepared should there be any signs of them collapsing. Chris Bertram, Cchair of Thames Awash, commented: "The flood investigation process means that this has finally come into the public domain. It is disappointing that the Environment Agency has consistently said the Jubilee River was safe to use at full capacity when in fact the Agency has had doubts for the past year. It is even more worrying that the Agency had rejected ThamesAwashs calls to suspend, or even limit possible operation of the river until all doubts were removed. Although the Environment Agency may not have intentionally planned to mislead the public, the effect is the same. This does not bode well for public acceptance of the FRAGs long awaited report onto last years floods which is due to be published shortly."