The River Ock is flowing higher than I have seen it for a couple of years after the recent rain.
It has covered some of the field backing onto the Ladygrove Estate in South Abingdon,
The hump bridge over the River Ock at the bottom of Mill Lane is repaired and reopened but the water is too deep to walk that way to Tesco. The environment agency said earlier at 5 am this morning “The River Ock remains high in the Stanford in the Vale and Charney Bassett areas, although water levels are currently stablising or falling in most locations along the river. No property flooding is currently expected. The weather prospects are: There is further heavy rain forecast for Saturday afternoon and Sunday will start dry with showers developing in the afternoon.”
Water usually stablilses and falls a little later in Abingdon than Charney Bassett.
(Update Sunday morning. After more rain the River Ock has risen at the lower end at the junction of the River Thames. St Helen’s Mill shown in this picture was tanked (waterproofed) after previous floods. If the River Ock rises any further this will be the first real test of the tanking.)
The River Thames continues to rise.
It had risen some 2-3 inches whilst we were
at this mornings Public Meeting to discuss the proposed
South Abingdon development – Excellent turnout
Issues of flooding were raised here to.
Unfortunately couldn’t make it to the meeting re. proposed Drayton Rd development & would really appreciate a short report from anyone who could. Did Ms Blackwood express any opinion herself?
Very concerned tonight as the river rises for the people on the narrow boats moored near the bridge as they tackle the fast rising water and ensuring thier boats and them keep safe has any of the emergency service been to see if they are ok?. the Marina is overflowing and the road to the carpark is not accessable. thus if you have a boat in the marina you will not be able to park its under serveral feet of fast flowing water and very dangerous.I understand the locks are not holding back the water but letting go thus allowing the water to use the flood plain..thank goodness we havent ever built on these essential areas.. The Ock by the anchor is nearing the bridge top and the houses to the rear gardens are steadily under water. The river will rise further lets hope its not a repeat of 2007.
Hi Tim D, I am happy to give you a summary report….but I must inform you that I am an experienced pessimist. I may lack some details but am happy to be corrected wherever others may see fit….
So, the meeting was, I thought, exceptionally well attended, virtually standing room only. This was a fantastic contrast to other meetings I have been to in the past. The ‘panel’ consisted of, a man from the Vale planning committee, a man from the county(?) comittee(?) representing infrastructure and the like, Nicola Blackwood, Mike Badcock, Councillor Jason, and Councillor Melville. Also marilyn Badcock – who did a air job of running round the floor with the microphone as directed by the panel. Apologies to all for any lack of detail…I didn’t note it down….this is from my rather poor memory.
Each panel member gave a brief overview of their ‘stance’ on the development. The 2 officers from the vale have to remain impartial so were not able to say that they did or didn’t agree with the planning application, only that the application has been received. They spoke about what they would expect to happen for an application to be received, vs what was actually received. Suggesting that the application isn’t particularly good – none the less it has been received and Hallam ( the developers) need to satisfy the planning people regarding drainage, traffic etc and how any adverse affects will be mitigated. Nicola Blackwood told us all how she has no power over the planning process but that she is against this application. The councillors also stated how they were objecting to it too.
The main thrust of the meeting was for the floor to ask questions or make statements regarding their objections. In essence there was much agreement…. Drainage is an issue that the developers need to address. That flooding, whilst not from the river, could come from surface water. This needs to be adequately catered for as was a major concern for many residents, especially those that are downhill of the development…and subject to flooding currently, literally, right now in some instances.
Concerns over general South Abingdon infrastructure were raised – no Drs – and over capacity already, no shops or amenities, schools already full etc.
Wildlife and ecological concerns were raised.
Traffic was about equal first with regards concerns with the drainage and flooding issue…the traffic approaching the double round abouts being the biggest issue.
There was a fair amount of repetition; mainly because everyone wanted to say their piece, and understandably so…but everyone was in agreement…so here wasn’t any need for discussion…just nodding of heads and noises of concurrence.
Much time was batted around regarding the inaccuracies of the Hallam application; such as traffic surveys done in school Holidays and without council consent, basic details on maps wrong, ecological studies wrong etc….all this mounting to a complete lack of trust and validity in the rest of Hallams submission…if they can’ get basic details right…then is everything else equally incorrect and therefore untrustworthy?
The reason for the application coming in to being was also discussed – the fact that the Vales housing strategy has lapsed, and so without one in place developers wil be seeking out opportunities to find development sites, such as in this instance. How this is to be addressed; with the Vale getting it’s plan inplace or at Least started by early next year should start to help.
One chap from Aylesbury Council said that he urged our councils to contact his as they had experience of how to handle Hallams….
It is likely that the development will be rejected but then go to appeal. Something Hallam are good at wining and so the panel and residents need to remain strong in their argument when it comes to the ensuing fight that is no doubt on the horizon.
That’s a very brief overview from memory….
One point I tried to ask , but didn’t get chosen….. The infrastructure man spoke about the developer needs to meet the planners levels of ‘acceptance’ with regards, amongst other things, dealing with the traffic. This seemed a good thing, but i wondered, and this worried me….I wanted to ask him, with the monumental failure of the AbITs system, and in the 7 years I’ve lived here only seeing the traffic get worse…what exactly is their ‘level of acceptance’, I fear it might in fact be quite low! If the dire traffic situation is not yet sorted, and not due to be….and this appears acceptable (as there’s no plan in place to sort the situation as it is now), then Hallams answer to the traffic needn’t necessarily be ‘good’, it could just be equally bad and equally still ‘acceptable’?
On a final point; everyone laughed at Hallams crazy suggestion of easing the traffic issue was to give each property at the development £140 in bicycle vouchers. “Scough scough” said everyone….whilst I Am no fan of Hallams or indeed this development….the County Councils own Transport Plan for Abingdon is not much, or even any better! There is NO bridge planned by the county transport plan, they plan NO opening of Lodge hill etc etc….the County’s plan is equally reliant on bicycles, busses and walking. In fact….it could be agued that Hallams grand plan is better as at least they are offering to help you buy a bike! I would say “scoff ye not”….as the over ridding transport plan for our area is no better than what this developer is suggesting….
In summary….a good start to objecting this development…but a very long way to go…maybe not now and maybe not here…but houses WILL be coming but hopefully better ‘plans’ will be in place to accommodate them.
Daniel – thanks very much for the report.
Sounds like we could be in for a long haul even if the first battle is won.