The Seacourt car park extension site has been pumped out for a few days following Storm Brendan which has brought huge amounts of water from our extensive catchment in the Cotswolds. But today the site is again filled with water, which has frozen overnight.
Work began again briefly as mentioned in the last post. Water was pumped from the site into a ditch newly dug nearby and leading to Seacourt Stream.
River levels have now risen further. Pumping has stopped and the site is again abandoned.
Were it a car park it would be unusable of course.
This post will be updated periodically (see photos).
Work resumed on 7 January 2020. This latest flood was another 18 days, taking total flooding of the site this winter to 6 weeks 5 days. The prediction in the planning application was for 2 weeks a year. It remains to be seen how it averages out over a number of years.
Work resumed at Seacourt P&R extension today, 4 weeks and a day after it had to stop because the site had flooded. Here is the sequence from 11 November to today.
Following up on our post of the 15th about the Seacourt P&R extension:
First, a budget figure of £5,156,122 was approved by Council in February 2019. That’s the last official figure we know of.
Second, the area remains flooded as this picture from this morning shows.
Edit – still flooded 25/11/19.
While we wait anxiously to see whether homes, businesses and roads will flood, work on the City Council’s extension to its Seacourt Park & Ride has come to a very wet standstill.
Building a car park in a flood plain is not sensible. Work having started as the wet winter season approached, the site is now a lake and work has stopped. The JCBs have been withdrawn onto the higher ground of the existing car park, and heaps of building materials are abandoned in the water. If the construction had been completed much of the extension would currently be under water. All this while the City is on ‘only’ a Flood Alert, the lowest category of concern.
The construction costs are likely to be much higher than estimated because of the disruption caused by flood events of the kind we’re currently witnessing. Councillors ignored the reality of frequent flooding here when they approved the planning application, and now we’re seeing the consequences. The last official budget figure we’re aware of was around £4million; we have heard, from a usually reliable source, that the cost may have risen to around £6 million, even before the present flooding of the site. Is this a sensible use of tax payers’ money?
Flooding at the site began on Monday, so it’s already been a working week that it would have been out of action if it had been built – that means lost revenue and an unreliable service. And time and money would then be needed for pumping out, clearing up and very likely making repairs before the extension could be safely reopened to the public. Further expense and further loss of revenue. Because the site is so low-lying, this will happen quite often.
Because it’s a car park and not a field there is increased risk to the public and to vehicles, and it remains to be seen how well the Council is able to manage flooding here. The water came up quite quickly at the start of the week, and in the interests of safety the extension would have had to be closed before that to avoid cars getting trapped in flood water, i.e. sometime early last week. And remember we are only on a Flood Alert, not a Flood Warning. Were people to try to enter even quite shallow floodwater to retrieve their cars things could go horribly wrong.
In the second photo above, from yesterday, you can see two large pipes floating in the lake, one in the centre, the other far over to the right against the boundary fence. If the flooding worsens these could float downstream and jam under the nearby bridge under the Botley Road, exacerbating flood risk. Were it already a car park, for pipes read cars.
We, and many others, fought this ill-conceived project hard. We hope the City Council will even now abandon it and restore the site to its previous state, as a valuable wildlife habitat, including for the badgers who have been driven out. To press on regardless means wasting ever more of Oxford’s citizens’ money, putting off for years any possible financial return to the Council, and meanwhile potentially both increasing flood risk and posing a risk to life and vehicles.
The Planning Statement for the application to extend Seacourt P&R states (para. 6.74):
” Consideration was given at an early stage in the design development to provision of a decked car park on the existing P&R site. This is not feasible because the existing P&R site is not within the Applicant’s freehold ownership and there is a legal covenant on the land which prohibits the construction of any buildings…”
That is to say, the rationale for an extension being needed, as opposed to raised decking on the existing car park, is that there is a covenant on the existing car park land which prevents the latter. We have asked the applicant if we can see the reported covenant but no such has been produced. Nor can we find one on searching the Land Registry. What we have been shown is an extract of what seems to be a form of lease agreement (not a covenant) on the existing car park. Such an agreement could potentially be varied by negotiation with the landlord.
Letter from us published in the Oxford Times of 8 December 2016
The proposed extension to Seacourt Park & Ride is one of the worst planning proposals we’ve seen for some time. In 2013, after much public consultation, the City Council adopted a Core Strategy to guide development in the city over the next period. Core Strategy 2 includes the statement: “Greenfield land will not be allocated for development if any part of the development would be on Flood Zone 3b.” The proposed extension to the Park & Ride is a greenfield site in Flood Zone 3b, the functional flood plain. How can this be? The planning documents don’t explain. Although the documents include a review of relevant local policies, Core Strategy 2 mysteriously doesn’t get a mention. What’s driving the application is a worry about short-term problems with traffic congestion on the Botley Rd pending completion of new Park & Rides at Eynsham and Cumnor. How does this short-term need justify departing from core strategy? National planning policy is designed to encourage local authorities to take a strategic approach to planning, thereby avoiding the need for this kind of last minute quick-fix nibbling away at the floodplain.
Apart from the obvious conflict with planning policy, the application is riddled with errors. The Flood Risk Assessment says that the most recent flooding event at the site was 2008, ignoring the major disruption in the winter of 2012/13, and the serious floods in early 2014. The FRA completely fails to take account of the fact that the site floods frequently, and proposes a design which will quickly degrade as a results of flood damage and silting. There is serious risk in the event of a major flood of large sections of the car park breaking up and washing into the flood channel. It’s a nonsense and needs to be stopped.
The first image is a part of a plan, from the Environment Agency, of the proposed Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme (OFAS) north of the Botley Road. This shows (as at 16 September 2016) that a key flood defence bund is planned for that scheme, running through the area where the car park extension is proposed.
The second image shows the area for the proposed extension to the Seacourt P&R.
It is not clear that the bund and the car park extension could co-exist. OFAS will reduce the risk of flooding in Oxford, vital for people and the future prosperity of the city, not least in the face of climate change. The car park extension proposal is flawed in many ways; the plan should be dropped.
We have made further comments (our fourth) on the Seacourt P&R planning application to the Planning Officer today, 19 December 2016:
Planning Application 16/02745/CT3
We wrote to you earlier with regard to the validity of the so called ‘sequential test’ carried out for the Seacourt P&R extension. In addition to our previous argument about the existence of an option of negotiating with the landlord to erect decking on the current site, we have further grounds for objection to the ‘sequential test’.
The City Council Executive Board papers for 15 December 2016 include proposals for removing 270 parking spaces at Redbridge to accommodate a new waste transfer facility. It appears there is excess capacity at Redbridge P&R. The analysis of occupancy of Redbridge and Seacourt P&Rs included in the Executive Board papers, show that there is existing spare capacity at Redbridge, and but for the planned waste facility this could relieve Seacourt during the week. There is also capacity at both car parks sufficient to adsorb expected increases in weekend traffic once the Westend development completes.
The Planning Statement for the Seacourt extention makes no mention of the surplus capacity available at Redbridge. The review of Redbridge in the ‘sequential test’ simple says that there is limited scope to ‘expand’ Redbridge. This is deeply misleading. There is clearly scope to redirect surplus traffic from Seacourt to Redbridge, which might be achieved at no cost simply by use of differential pricing – i.e. making Seacourt more expensive. In the Seacourt application we’re told Seacourt has to expand because there isn’t an option at Redbridge. But the Redbridge proposal is using the possible expansion of Seacourt to justify closing parts of Redbridge. So the need to expand Seacourt is at least in part being created by the Council’s wish to re-purpose part of the Redbridge site. This is clearly an unacceptable justification for the Seacourt extending into the floodplain on Green Belt land.
Given the existence of sufficient capacity to deal with any increased weekend traffic related to the Westend, the arguments for the extension, contained in 3.20 of the Planning Statement, appear extremely general. Is this really the best justification the Council can offer for breaching its own core strategy, national policy on Green Belt, and guidance on development in the floodplain? The justification for this move appears to rely wholly on longer term projections about potential increases in traffic resulting from a growth in the city and county during the next 15 years. Such needs should be addressed through a strategic planning process.
We understand that the Council has to increasingly rely on the revenue it earns, and perhaps the real, unstated reason why this proposal has come forward is financial. But even this doesn’t make sense. The capital cost has now doubled from the original budget to £4.1m. Extra income from the extension, assuming rates increase from £2 to £3 a day, is projected at £160,000 a year according to the Executive Board papers. Even assuming this revenue is achievable the investment would take more than 26 years to pay back, and that is without discounting for the cost of capital. If, as we believe is likely, the site floods regularly, has to be closed part of the year, and faces significant maintenance costs, the payback period will be much longer.
This scheme is a nonsense and should not proceed.
We have submitted a further comment (our third), this time on the proposed porous paving, to the planning authority today. You can download it here.