LOCAL CONCERNS

The increased risk of flooding is a major local concern – and not without reason. The proposed reservoir site lies on flat land at the eastern end of the Upper Thames catchment area. Watercourses flowing north-eastwards through the area converge here before discharging into the Thames at Abingdon. Consequently, this region is already particularly prone to flooding during periods of prolonged heavy rain, when additional surface water from the Downs causes watercourses to overflow, inundating homes and highways.

In an attempt to reduce local flood risk, the Environment Agency has recently advocated a number of measures which include extending the area of floodplain south of Marcham, but this would become part of the reservoir site.

Currently, most of the site is productive arable farmland, which is very effective in allowing vegetation to take up surface water. Thousands of acres of this farmland would be lost to the proposed reservoir, leading to considerable water run-off from its embankments.

The result would inevitably lead to sharply increased local flood risk. To address this, Thames Water (TW) say they will increase the flood plain area; but the proposed reservoir itself would occupy the area most suitable for it.

The Environment Agency’s flood maps can be seen on their website – ironically, under the heading of “prepare for flooding”. Comparing the Wantage–Abingdon area flood map with TW’s reservoir outline it can be seen that the proposed reservoir would remove most of the existing flood plain, with potentially disastrous effects caused by further substantial flooding.

The clay topsoil of the region is relatively impervious. A 1973 government study of the area found that, due to substantial flows within the shale subsoil, the groundwater table can be less than 60cm from the surface for six months of the year.

The hydrology of the area is complex. TW claim to have found solutions to the site problems through extensive in-house computer modelling, but decline to disclose details of this modelling.

This lack of openness does not encourage public confidence in TW’s conclusions. Because of its fundamental importance, GARD insists that the modelling should be conducted, not by TW as a vested interest, but by an independent body, and the results made available for public scrutiny.

There would also be a permanent loss of thousands of acres of productive farmland. In the 25 years or so since the reservoir was first suggested, property values on the site have been blighted and farm investment has effectively been halted.

Unlike other reservoirs, this one would not simply consist of a dam sealing the end of a valley. A reservoir of this size would be unique in this country, comprising a purpose-built embankment 15-25 metres high and located where it could hardly be less intrusive and would be over looked by the Ridgeway.

The following reactions to TW’s proposed Abingdon reservoir represent typical views of local residents in our communities:-

“Why should we have to put up with 10 years of disruption, dust, increased traffic, noise and blighted property values when it is clear the reservoir is not needed.”

“Our local communities do not accept that WE should take all the pain of this reservoir to meet LONDON’s growing water usage when there are better alternatives costing much less which can meet London’s needs.”

In July 2007 the River Ock spilling millions of gallons of water into south Abingdon flooding this Tesco's car park along with hundreds of homes.

AN ABINGDON RESERVOIR IS NEITHER NEEDED NOR JUSTIFIABLE