a)    Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Coe, Lead member for Environmental Services

It is twenty years since the 2003 flood event and nearly ten years since the two 2014 flood events.  Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Old Windsor still have no flood alleviation scheme after Channel One was removed from the River Thames Scheme in July 2020.   Why is my area knowingly left at ever-increasing risk of flooding?

b)    Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Coe, Lead member for Environmental Services

The former administration passed a motion on 27/9/2022 to request that the Environment Agency resumes dredging of the River Thames within the boundaries of RBWM.  Another year has passed.  What progress has been made please?

(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with Member questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances. The Member who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before the meeting. The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put a supplementary question at the meeting. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply provided and shall not have the effect of introducing any new subject matter. A Member responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond).

a)    Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Coe, Lead member for Environmental Services

It is twenty years since the 2003 flood event and nearly ten years since the two 2014 flood events.  Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Old Windsor still have no flood alleviation scheme after Channel One was removed from the River Thames Scheme in July 2020.   Why is my area knowingly left at ever-increasing risk of flooding?

Written response: Like you, I have vivid memories of the two more recent major flooding incidents in 2003 and 2014. In 2003 I was working and living in Old Windsor and remember well some of the properties nearer the river and some of the children in my class being flooded. In 2014 I was working in Egham and remember colleagues at work watching their homes in and around Spelthorne going under water on television whilst they were unable to get home.

The blame for the failure to deliver the Thames Scheme Channel 1 rests firstly with the decision of national government in 2011 to abandon national funding of flood alleviation schemes and to move to partnership funding of flood schemes with local authorities and the subsequent decision of the former administration of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead not to fund their share of the partnership funding, despite partnership funding being their own government’s policy.

This cut to national funding of flood schemes and abdication of responsibility by central government for adapting to and protecting local communities from the consequences of global warming was galling as it sought to secure match funding from local councils, at the very same time as central government was also cutting funding to local councils.

The former administration’s failure to allocate the funds required of them by their own government to fund flood defences for Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Old Windsor, has meant the four villages have been deprived a once in a generation opportunity to be properly protected from Thames flooding.

During the same period the previous administration found many £millions to fund projects they were interested in, but which were of less consequence to the lives of local residents.

There was also at the time nothing stopping national government from funding the scheme, other than lack of will to do so.

The Royal Borough’s failure to fund its share of Channel 1 meant that River Thames Scheme Sponsorship Group decided in July 2020 to proceed without Channel 1. With a new scheme having to be started, the project process the Environment Agency must use to develop a project and achieve funding from the Treasury requires multiple business cases. This new project required this process to start again, with the first of the business cases, the Strategic Outline Case, going through the EA assurance process earlier this year. The project is now moving forward to Outline Business Case which is forecast to take approximately 2 years.

The £10million which was allocated by the former administration remains available and ringfenced and the Council and Environment Agency are now looking at an Alternative Scheme, the Datchet to Hythe End flood improvement measures.

This much more modest project is a very poor substitute for the originally proposed scheme. The government and previous administration’s failure to fund Channel 1 is a missed once in a generation opportunity to protect Datchet, Horton, Wraysbury and Old Windsor from the consequences of climate change.

Further information on the Datchet to Hythe End flood improvement measures can be found at Gov.uk webpage for this project: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/datchet-to-hythe-end-flood-improvement-measures/datchet-to-hythe-end-flood-improvement-measures

Councillor Larcombe thanked Councillor Coe for the answer and stated that after many years of assurances the former administration were not only unwilling and or were unable to make the mandatory partnership funding contribution. He added that some individuals were clearly and deliberately disingenuous and conspired to hide the truth until it was too late to respond. He asked as a supplementary question what action was the new administration going to take to correct three decades of discrimination and injustice.

Councillor Coe replied that the previous administration had thrown away a once in lifetime opportunity because now as the Council’s financial position is significantly worse than when the Channel One was first considered. He did not want to tell people in Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury that they were suddenly going to find £50million or that the Channel One Scheme was now going to go ahead. He acknowledged that was a very distant prospect. He advised the meeting that he did have a briefing with the team regarding the Datchet High Den Scheme, which he knew Councillor Larcombe was not very impressed with. That scheme had been in development for two years with the Environment Agency which was a range of options such as improve the protection of individual properties or build a channel similar to Channel One and there are eight tiers of options. He reflected that he did not think it should have taken two years. That scheme was being another consultation and a further two-year process to build a more detailed business case. He considered that the Environment Agency’s approach was to delay applications for flood relief so that they did not have to be funded. He concluded that the good news was that a channel was an option within the scheme but he advised it would still take some time.

b)    Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Coe, Lead member for Environmental Services

The former administration passed a motion on 27/9/2022 to request that the Environment Agency resumes dredging of the River Thames within the boundaries of RBWM.  Another year has passed.  What progress has been made please?

Written response: I do not believe this motion was passed with any serious expectation of it achieving anything. It is my belief the motion was a political window dressing intended to convey action and distract from the failure to fund the Royal Borough’s “match funding” contribution to the proper “Channel 1” proposal.

The council followed up the motion with a request to the Environment Agency to recommence dredging of the River Thames, within the Borough boundary, which had been abandoned some time ago. Whilst it is the case that dredging can increase the channel cross section and hence capacity to carry water, within its banks, any relief is short lived, as the river can redistribute silt at some pace. Consequently, for dredging to be effective it must be sustained on an ongoing basis.

I believe the former administration will have known the Environment Agency’s view, namely that dredging was uneconomic and unproductive, before they passed their motion and consequently will have known that the Environment Agency’s response would be the one the council did in due course receive.

If the former administration had truly intended to achieve progress on this issue more serious engagement with the Environment Agency over a much longer period would have been required. I can only assume the motion was intended for purposes other than securing dredging.

To answer your question succinctly, no progress has been made with regard to the specific issue of dredging the Thames. Any such progress would require a change of national policy by the Environment Agency and that would be a matter for the Borough’s two members of parliament, to pursue with the relevant Secretary of State.

A response to the motion about dredging of the River Thames was provided to the Royal Borough by the Environment Agency in January 2023. This response is below:

Requests that the Environment Agency resumes dredging of the River Thames within the boundaries of RBWM (especially the undefended reach between Black Potts and Bells Weir) to both ease navigation and increase the rivers capacity to hold water and therefore alleviate flood risk to our riverside communities.

Response –

“We continue to carry out dredging or river reprofiling where it is financially and technically feasible and is required to maintain the right of navigation on the river. River reprofiling consists of redistributing shoals of sediment from the higher parts of the riverbed to lower parts of the riverbed.

Our maintenance of watercourses does provide flood risk benefits, although this will vary depending upon local geography and other factors. We maintain locks, weirs and other assets along the River Thames to support navigation and amenity which cannot be removed to increase conveyance. We operate these assets during times of flooding to increase the flow of water. These weirs are opened before Flood Alerts are issued, before the River Thames flows out of banks and into the flood plain.

The River Thames was dredged for 50 years following the 1947 floods, historically for navigation and for flood risk purposes. We stopped the widespread use of this practice over 15 years ago because it was not financially and economically feasible; it causes significant ecological damage; and in some cases, increased flood risk elsewhere. We carry out surveys of the riverbed and flood modelling to inform our management of the river and navigation. The latest bathymetric survey is dated 2021. These surveys have shown that historically, dredging could only increase channel capacity temporarily as the River Thames quickly redistributes sediment to replace any that is removed. Recent surveys and the current modelling indicate that the cessation of dredging has resulted in no clear net erosion or deposition to date, including the section between Black Potts and Bell Weir. Due to the volumes of water conveyed during floods dredging does not provide sufficient extra capacity to reduce flood flows or reduce flood risk to properties and businesses.

We removed a large shoal from the tail of Bell Weir lock as part of the shoal removal project. We are aware of shallow water marked on the inside of two river bends in Boveney and Romney reaches. These are clearly identified with green buoys. We are also aware of several areas of shallow water at lock cuts or areas close to the main channel.

We have checked with colleagues and do not believe there is currently a problem with navigation. These locations will be considered for inclusion when planning further river reprofiling. If the council is aware of any navigational issues, please would you report them to the Environment Agency incident hotline so that we can investigate and take any appropriate action, of you have any concerns feel free to contact myself in future directly.

You can find more information in this blog which explains in more detail the Environment Agency’s overall approach to dredging.”

Councillor Larcombe stated that the Environment Agency does not appear to have a coherent plan, he had a plan but asked as a supplementary question what action was the new administration going to take to correct three decades of discrimination and injustice against the people of Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury.

Councillor Coe replied that he had nothing to add to his previous answer but offered to meet with Councillor Larcombe on matters which they were already discussing with regard to more minor relief of flooding in Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury.