LOCAL CONCERNS

The increased risk of flooding, had the massive Abingdon reservoir been authorised, would have caused major local concern – and not without reason. The proposed reservoir would have been sited 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 had advocated a number of measures which would have included extending the area of floodplain south of Marcham, but this would have 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. Some 5,000 acres of farmland would have been permanently lost to the proposed reservoir, leading to considerable water run-off from its embankments.

The result would inevitably have led to sharply increased local flood risk. To address this, Thames Water said they would increase the flood plain area; but the proposed reservoir itself would have occupied 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 Thames Water’s proposed reservoir outline it can be seen that it would have removed 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. Thames Water claimed to have found solutions to the site problems through extensive in-house computer modelling, but declined to disclose details of this modelling.

This lack of openness did not encourage public confidence in their conclusions. Because of its fundamental importance, GARD insisted that such modelling should be conducted by an independent body, and the results made available for public scrutiny.

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 curtailed.

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

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

“Why should we have had to have put up with 10 years of disruption, dust, increased traffic, noise and blighted property values when it was obviously clear the reservoir would not be 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 to all of us which can meet London’s needs.”

More widely, it seems unjust that residents of Swindon and Oxfordshire should, because they are all customers of Thames Water, be charged for the construction of the Thames Tideway tunnel to cope with disposal of London’s sewage, estimated the cost £3.6 billion.

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.

NO ABINGDON RESERVOIR WAS EVER NEEDED OR JUSTIFIABLE