Response to South East Strategic Reservoir Option Public Consultation
Response to South East Strategic Reservoir Option Public Consultation
Abingdon on Thames Town Council has reviewed the Statutory Public Consultation information, and Councillors have attended the recent public engagement events.
The Town Council is maintaining its consistently held objection to SESRO.
Our response is based on our concerns regarding whether this is still the most financially viable, deliverable and practical solution on a value basis, plus the significant potential impacts to our residents, the local natural and built environments and the daily impacts on the overall quality of local daily life and the significant disruptions during the initial build and commissioning phases, should it go ahead.
Abingdon Town Council will also fully support our District and County Council colleagues and their Officers and professional advisors in their comments on the scheme due to their access to resources and specialisms available to them.
Our concerns:
Flood Risk Implications and watercourse issues
- The River Ock and other watercourse flooding in south Abingdon has been well documented and has blighted multiple properties in South Abingdon, especially following 3 events in 2024, two of which were within a couple of months of each other.
www.oxfordshirefloodtoolkit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/S19-Report-Nash-Drive-v1.0-FINAL.pdf
- The Environment Agency in the last few months has tested a temporary flood barrier scheme for the area, but this is only what it says, temporary and reactive, not a scheme to provide a long term flood solution for the area.
- The Environment Agency has proposed several schemes to provide that acknowledged and needed long term solution for the area since 2007, but funds to deliver it do not currently exist. The proposed schemes are based on the current land and infrastructure of the area, without SESRO.
- SESRO’s Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report (Non-Technical Summary) covers possible impacts caused by the scheme. 2.6 mentions watercourse diversions and replacement floodplain storage which at 6.2.7 are noted as causing likely significant effects. 6.2.8 and 6.2.9 highlight significant water quality effects on the Thames and Ock that construction ground disturbance may result in changes to groundwater levels and both geological and watercourse water movement.
- The Council and residents are most worried that 6.2.12 states ‘preliminary assessment identifies a potential for some permanent significant adverse effects which will be assessed further. This includes changes to the physical characteristics and flows in the River Ock and in other smaller watercourses and ditches due to loss of catchment area, watercourse creation/diversions and changes to flows of water over land’.
- This statement, without the details of what the impacts could be and how they could be addressed and remedied, is not acceptable to Abingdon Town Council on behalf of all our residents who have suffered flooding over the years. The position for those residents must be improved as part of the scheme; not left in the poor situation it currently is or worsened.
- This has also been highlighted by the Ock River Flood Group made up of local residents, who have been effectively working with the Environment Agency locally on the ongoing problems.
- An Abingdon Flood Alleviation Scheme is mentioned which from this information appears essential, but there is only extremely limited detail given on the proposal, so proper evaluation cannot be made.
Section Conclusion
No Development Consent Order should be granted if the position stated in the Preliminary information Report 6.2.12 is confirmed by further survey work. This work needs to be completed and offer competent solutions before the Consent request is considered.
Current information makes it appear that more residents, businesses and properties could be adversely affected based on this information, which is totally unacceptable to the Town Council and residents.
Transport and Traffic impacts of construction on Abingdon
In the last year there seems to have been slow progress on developing the transport aspect during the initial construction phase. Multiple statements of ‘ongoing’ are made but in short, the position is still:
- Total reliance on the aspiration for the railway delivery and handling yard being permitted, accessing the very crowded very crowded London to Bristol main line. It is noted that night deliveries and working at that siding is now included as an option in the working hours section of the Draft Code of Construction Practice which had not been mentioned until now.
- It will take 2 years at least to build, during which time local roads will have to cope with the initial load. The statement in PEI 6.9.6 ‘These construction activities could lead to significant effects from construction traffic at the A415/A34 Marcham Interchange’ sounds like masterful understatement to any local resident.
- The A34 is at or beyond capacity, it has frequent accidents, especially in the Milton and Marcham interchange areas and cannot be considered a robust and sustainable option. Upgrading Marcham Interchange is in the plans, but the comments are vague, giving no details, suggested plans or timescales within the programme.
Any work at this key interchange, will have serious implications for traffic flows into and out of Abingdon Town along the A415 and when joining and exiting the A34. The Town Council strongly believes that a Development Consent should not be granted, unless a robust work plan and effective delivery timescale have been independently assessed and agreed for the works.
- When breakdowns and accidents occur anywhere between the Chilton and Hinksey Hill junctions of the A34, which sadly happens far too frequently, traffic takes to the local A and B roads which gridlocks all the surrounding villages and Abingdon, from all directions.
- Local plans up to 2050 place Abingdon at the epicentre of several very large-scale developments, namely Dalton Barracks / Abingdon Airfield (up to a maximum of 5,250 homes according to Defence Infrastructure) and Culham Science Village (Science Park expansion plus 3,500 homes), plus other expansions within the Science Vale area.
- These will be generating high levels of construction traffic simultaneously with SESRO should consent to proceed on its planned timescale be granted. SESRO only say they will encourage or seek to try and arrange shared worker travel but there is no firm plan.
- Additionally, construction traffic does not always adhere to planned routes. Technology (e.g. ANPR cameras) must be used to identify and fine any vehicles that use routes they should not. Those routes cannot be provided for scrutiny as fuller traffic assessments are still needed.
- Abingdon’s one historic bridge recently had to have significant remedial work and single lane working, so any travel routes through the town must be avoided to prevent extra environmental damage and frustration for residents.
Section Conclusion
Thames Water have not been able to give any detail on the project that allows us to make meaningful comment as Traffic Assessments, just as with the River Ock assessments are ‘ongoing’ or ‘require further work’.
Statements like ‘Highways Improvements to reduce effects on the wider road network including improvements to the A34 Marcham Interchange’ do not allow the Town Council to make proper critical comment
The position of the discussions with Network Rail for the siding for delivery of construction material is not clear, but at PEI 6.9.8 further concerns locally are caused by stating rail ‘where practicable’ but there could be times it is not available or requirements may vary.
This appears to leave the options for road transport open in addition to the rail siding. Abingdon is regularly a gridlocked town without additional traffic trying to avoid any additional disruptions caused by this development, which currently cannot be detailed as they do not appear to have been assessed.
This is not acceptable to The Council on behalf of our residents and categorically in our opinion – no confirmation from Network Rail of an acceptable rail solution – no Development Consent Order.
Environment & Ecological impacts of Construction
Over a minimum 10 year term the following impacts will be likely:
- Extreme disruption to local planting and species both during the build plan and for a similar length of time for the recovery or establishment of the planned new planted and recreational areas.
- Recent major infrastructure projects (HS2) have been noted for significant late delivery, so a 15 year build time with the further impacts that would generate could be very likely.
- Noise, vibration, dust, and mud spread to the local roads during the build need to be strictly controlled as will all the impacts of rail and road noise and pollution.
- Establishing the Thames link to the reservoir, while being achieved by tunnel boring machine (TBM) raises concerns over possible vibration damage to properties and disturbance to residents. It has also not been clear until this stage that the TBM is anticipated to operate a 24 hour day, 7 days a week according to the Draft Code of Construction Practice.
- Alternative methods of travel to work need to be sought other than sole workers commuting from distance in their own vehicles, adding to the problems.
- The reservoir’s construction will be the largest of its construction method attempted in the country with a capacity at 10 times that of Farmoor and any bund failure could have serious implications for the area. The only reassurance offered is the 1975 Act governing Reservoirs, which predates a scheme of this size
Conclusion
Abingdon Town Council has very strong concerns over the degrading of local wildlife, watercourses and fauna during construction period, the effects of which could last for a period at least as long afterwards, and the imagery of mature leisure parks at the consultations will take all that time to become established, if they do.
This will impact residents, their children, and grandchildren, for potentially a couple of decades at least, if not irrevocably.
In the event of a breach what are the implications for the local environment.
There is limited information available on the tunnelling effects and impacts, which is not acceptable at this stage of the process.
The Berks & Wilts Canal reinstatement options
Abingdon Town Council strongly supports the work of the Berks & Wilts Canal Trust to reinstate the canal; with the additional tourism and economic benefits it will bring to the town and into the surrounding area of the Vale of White Horse District area.
The Town Council is very concerned that the amended SESRO proposal for the canal neither addresses the connection of the proposed new route under the A34 to the existing connection to the Thames, or the recovery of the lock materials owned by the Trust from the existing lock locations.
Abingdon Town Council calls on Thames Water to provide a solution that does not prejudice the future development of the canal and connection to the River Thames to allow it to become fully navigable again.
Section Conclusion
Abingdon Town Council wishes to see a fuller, more effective solution offered to the Trust to safeguard the future of their project with all the enhanced leisure, tourism, and economic benefits it can bring as a fully operating canal.
RAPID Gate 3 draft recommendation raises ‘is this actually the right option at these costs?’ over escalating project costs
Abingdon Town Council understands that RAPID’s latest draft report whilst approving certain elements of Gate 3 approval, is questioning the increased costs Thames Water recently announced and whether the scheme now offers a value for money viable option.
The Council and residents have seen costs increase from £1.5bn in 2023, to £2.2bn in 2024 to the current midpoint estimate of £6.6bn with a potential maximum of £7.5bn.
As the maximum figure has increased by a factor of 5 in 2 years from the 2023 figure, there is no reason to believe it will not escalate further as has happened with all major recent Nationally Significant Infrastructure Schemes – HS2 standing as the principal example.
The Town Council also notes that there has been a recent debate in the House of Commons raising serious concerns over the financial viability of Thames Water and therefore the scheme.
Section Conclusion
On behalf of all Abingdon residents, the Council does not believe this scheme is now a cost-effective solution.
Final Summary Conclusion
During the recent public consultations, Abingdon Town Council’s Chair of Planning was told that a Development Consent Order is a full, not outline, Planning Consent.
Locally, full planning applications for major developments will have relevant surveys attached to them or are required and available for scrutiny prior to a decision, but most of the key surveys have not been completed at this stage.
Abingdon on Thames Town Council formally objects on behalf of all residents to SESRO on the grounds listed above and due to the lack of full survey data to consider.
The project detail is lacking, the costs escalating significantly and too many statements are ifs, maybes and could be’s, rather than clear plans and detail.
As previously stated, the Council will also stand by and endorse the formal responses of our District and County colleagues and the concerns and objections of the local parishes and flood groups.
