Week three of the CPO inquiry saw further detailed discussion of points raised by objectors to the scheme. It opened with evidence presented by Ferry Hinksey Trust/OFEG, starting with their hydrology expert, Clive Carpenter. He was followed by Patricia Murphy and Brian Durham.

Mr Carpenter had been asked by his client to review four ‘alternative options’: no channel, no channel with raised flood defences, an alternative road configuration at Old Abingdon Rd, and a pump and pipes option.  The main thrust of his argument was around no channel with raised defences, which he felt might be made to work if effort was put into finding engineering solutions to the additional flooding caused by removing the channel. He said he was trying to demonstrate that there were options the EA could have explored, not that he had all the answers. The EA response was that they do not believe the affects of removing the channel can be compensated for.

Patricia Murphy argued there had been no engagement from the EA on OFEG’s concerns. The EA barrister cross-questioning her took her through a detailed summary of all the community engagement since the scheme was first proposed, including all the topics discussed. Ms Murphy acknowledged she had participated in many of these events. The barrister pointed out that this was ‘engagement’ and that consulting people didn’t mean agreeing with all their arguments.

Mr Durham also asserted that the EA hadn’t engaged on the 4 ‘alternatives’ under discussion, but in cross-questioning accepted there had been extensive discussion and correspondence with him.  By ‘hadn’t engaged’ he meant the EA hadn’t taken up any of these ideas. Counsel for the EA explained through questioning the reasons for rejecting the four options which had previously been discussed with Mr Carpenter.  On the pump and pipe solution Mr Durham accepted the EA has an objection in principle to this approach and acknowledged that: ‘if one had an alternative one wouldn’t rely on pumping’.

The following day the EA presented their rebuttal evidence in response to the FHT/OFEG  proofs of evidence, and  EA witnesses were then cross questioned. Counsel for the opposition focused on two main points:  a) a discussion around the degree of uncertainty created by removing the channel versus the scheme as designed, and b) the idea that in a no channel scenario the EA could contract with landowners to make sure they manage their land in a way which facilitates conveyance of flood water. The EA said that if the channel were removed they would have to acquire rights over the entire floodplain, because it is not legal to increase flooding of other people’s land. The EA believes the predictability afforded by the channel is integral to the scheme and they would not support a scheme with no channel.

Thursday saw other objectors give their evidence. James Wynne, Chair of the Trustees of the 4th Oxford Scout Group, presented his  concerns about the future of the scout group which is looking for a new permanent base, one option being a site affected by OFAS.  The inquiry heard that the EA has been in communications with Mr Wynne around access to the site, and that the EA is happy to work with the Scouts once they have a licence to use the land. Access to the site for recreation and education is one of the EA’s goals for the scheme. 

Next Elizabeth Jukes, a resident of South Hinksey, outlined how her garden will host one of the scheme’s flood barrier walls. Her objection centred on the disruption to and mess in her garden over the period of the building of the scheme, and to having in her garden a permanent flood wall. The EA have been in discussion with this objector and understand the concern. They said that the disruption will be intermittent and with notice, and that following the completion of the scheme, the EA will ensure that the tree replanting is done according to homeowner’s wishes. 

The next objectors were Riki Therivel and Tim O’Hara. Dr Therivel’s objections centred on the potential safety risk of HGVs exiting South Hinksey onto the A34 over the course of the construction of the scheme, and the potential disruption that a 40mph speed limit could cause to other users of the A34. She argued this could have economic costs. In his rebuttal evidence Mr Lear, for the EA, explained that the number of trucks per hour was small and neither National Highways nor the local highways authority have concerns about the impact on traffic flows or safety.

Mr O’Hara’s evidence addressed the extent to which alternatives have been investigated, including a discussion about the weight which should be given to impacts which are not eligible for inclusion in the formal cost benefit analysis. Emma Formoy for the EA explained that although the financial calculations of flood impacts at a national level do not include local impacts, the team not only assess these economic impacts in their scheme appraisals, but consider them important because of the effect they have on Oxford’s local economy. 

The day finished with evidence from Dr Tim King, and a presentation by Jonathan Madden about the pump and pipe solution. The EA does not consider pumping a viable option, with reasons for this explored in cross-questioning.

A site visit to parts of the scheme took place on Friday 1 Dec and the rest of the scheme area will be visited on Monday 4 Dec. This is to enable the inspector to see the various locations which have been in discussion over the last three weeks.

The inquiry will sit again on Tuesday 12 December, where a small number of remaining objectors will make their arguments.