Sir, I share the concerns expressed by Wallingford mayor, Bernard Stone, regarding the additional flood risk presented by an Oxford Flood Conveyance system. I attended the recent ‘flood forum’ at Osney Mead and heard of the issues we face in the future from flooding. Much time was devoted to describing the catchment area of the upper Thames Valley in what was described as a ‘system’ and how it channels water into the River Thames.

However, when it came to solutions to deal with this water, it was clear that none exists for the ‘system’ but simply ad-hoc piecemeal solutions. The £123m fix for Oxford involves digging a new channel to the east of Oxford which rejoins the Thames near Sandford. In spite of assurances from the EA that the net flow at Sandford would remain the same as if the new channel is not built, several important questions remain unanswered. First, if there is no additional flow at Sandford how can there possibly be any beneficial effect on flood levels in Oxford given that any floodplain that was flooded before will still be flooded in future?

Second, if there is a threat to property from flooding in Oxford it would be easy to open the sluices and increase the flow along the relief channel and hence inundate the villages and towns downstream. Third, if the Maidenhead scheme was so successful, why is there now a plan for an additional flood relief scheme, projected to cost £250m, immediately downstream from Maidenhead to Teddington? Fourth, why should taxpayers spend £43bn on a high-speed rail link that will benefit relatively few rich businessmen, when for a mere fraction of the cost we could have a ‘high speed river system’ that would benefit a much greater number of voters?

Chris Hill

Bridge End

Dorchester