Reading and Caversham flood alleviation scheme
February and March 2020 public drop-ins feedback report
June 2020
We are the Environment Agency. We protect and improve the environment. We help people and wildlife adapt to climate change and reduce its impacts, including flooding, drought, sea level rise and coastal erosion. We improve the quality of our water, land and air by tackling pollution. We work with businesses to help them comply with environmental regulations. A healthy and diverse environment enhances people's lives and contributes to economic growth. We can’t do this alone. We work as part of the Defra group (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs), with the rest of government, local councils, businesses, civil society groups and local communities to create a better place for people and wildlife.
Published by: Environment Agency . Kingsmeadow House, Kingsmeadow Road, Reading, RG18DQ Email: Readingandcavershamscheme@environment- agency.gov.uk www.gov.uk/government/publications/north-reading-and-lower-caversham- floodalleviation- scheme/north-reading-and-lower-caversham-flood-alleviation-scheme © Environment Agency 2020 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency.
2 of 41
Contents
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………….………..page 4 Drop-in objectives ……………………………………………………….………………..page 5 Process…………………………………………………………………….……………….page 5 Drop-in promotion………………………………………………………………………….page 6 Feedback questions……………………………………………………………………….page 7 Feedback results…………………………………………………………………………..page 8 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………page 20
3 of 41
Executive summary
Our vision is to reduce flood risk to hundreds of properties and keep Reading moving. We aim to increase the value of the area for the local community and biodiversity. The purpose of this report is to summarise attendee feedback from the recent drop-ins. During this series of drop-ins, we focussed on: Updating the community about the potential scheme design. Displaying scheme based material. Giving community members an opportunity to discuss and ask scheme based questions. Through holding these drop-ins, we sought to understand the local community’s views about the scheme and collect feedback. We held a series of 6 public drop-ins, from the 26 February to 13 March 2020. At each drop-in we had staff present who were able to speak about all the aspects of the project. We displayed materials that helped people visualise what the scheme could look like. We asked people for feedback through a form available at the drop-ins and an online survey. Unfortunately we had to cancel a 7th drop-in on the 20 March, due to Coronavirus restrictions. We want to be as transparent as possible with the feedback we received. This report includes all online and hard copy responses. High level feedback
In total 140 respondents completed the feedback forms. 117 hard copy forms and 23 online surveys. The main highlights are: We received the majority of feedback from within the scheme area. Most people, found out about the drop-ins through the letter drop or email. With 54 respondents finding out by letter drop and 40 respondents finding out by email. People could select multiple answers for this question. The vast majority (78%) rated the drop-ins 5 (55%) or 4 (23%) on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very useful. The vast majority (88%) had already heard of our work to reduce flood risk in Reading and Caversham. 20% thought that their previous feedback had been listened to, while 18% did not feel their feedback had been listened to. The remainder (62%) did not answer or had not provided any feedback in the past. The aspects of the drop-ins that people found to be the most helpful were: o Speaking to staff. o Landscape plans. o Before and after photos. 78% understood that there are a large number of people at risk of flooding in this area, 8% did not believe this, the rest did not answer or were not sure. 62% agreed with the need to reduce flood risk within the scheme area, 14% did not, the rest did not answer or were not sure. 59% said they agreed with the overall scheme design and 21% did not, the rest did not answer or were not sure.
4 of 41
66% of responders lived in a flood risk area and 21% did not, the rest did not answer or were not sure. From those in a flood risk area (93 in total), 14% had experienced flooding, 77% had not.
1 Drop-in objectives To continue to raise awareness of flood risk in the area and what people can do to prepare. To update the local community, show them new materials to help describe the design and to get feedback on this process.
Environment Agency staff with participants at the Environment agency staff and public explaining Weller Centre venue. Flood risk materials.
2 Process We organised 4 internal drop-ins at Environment Agency offices. We held these in December 2019 and January 2020. We met with resident and interest groups through February and early March 2020. These gave us an opportunity to test the new materials and make any updates needed before engaging with the wider community. We ran the public drop-ins from 26 February until 13 March 2020. We held 2 of our drop-ins at weekends and in the evening to allow residents to attend outside working hours. The final drop-in was cancelled due to the Coronavirus Lockdown.
5 of 41
Table 1: Dates and venues for drop-ins, as advertised on postcards and posters
3 Drop-in promotion Letters, postcards and posters
We posted 2050 letters within the flood scheme area, the letters were addressed to the named owner as listed at the Land Registry. We handed out over 350 postcards to residents and public. We asked local shops, cafes and other venues to put up A4 and A3 sized posters and postcards.
6 of 41
With permission from Reading Borough Council, we put posters on lampposts and noticeboards in north Reading along Caversham Road and the South Thames path, in central Caversham, along Gosbrook Road, in Christchurch Meadows and around Amersham Road area. Press event and social media We held a press event on 25 February. 5 media outlets attended. BBC South Television, Meridian Television, the Reading Chronicle, Get Reading and the Breeze 107.8. It was also covered by Heart, Henley Standard and Berkshire Live. Coverage was shown on BBC South, Meriden and online at Heart FM and 107FM the Breeze. Our public drop-ins were advertised on Environment Agency Twitter accounts, and through local community websites.
4 Feedback questions We asked for feedback from the community to help inform the next steps for the project. The feedback form is included in the appendices.
5 Feedback results We made the feedback form available in both hard copy and online survey formats. We hosted our online survey on the site Smart Survey. The survey was open throughout the drop-ins and remained open until 25 March 2020. At each drop-in we gave the option of filling in a hard copy of the feedback form or filling in the online survey on one of our computers. Participants were also given the survey link if they preferred to complete the online survey at home. Not all of the 19 questions were answered in each feedback form. We have included the category ‘not answered’ in the results. We received a total of 140 responses, including 117 hardcopy feedback forms and 23 online responses. We have reported on the combined responses to the online and hardcopy forms in this report. We looked at the total number of responses for each question. We had the most responses in Question 1 (How did you find out about the drop-in?) with a total of 138 responses. The least number of responses was for Question 6 (Is there anything else that would help you better understand the flood risk in the area, and our proposals to reduce this risk, that was unavailable today?) with only 44 responses.
7 of 41
Number of responses to each question
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Total Responses
Who came to the events? Across the 6 drop-ins, 238 people attended, 117 response forms were completed and 23 forms were submitted online: Drop-in Number of people Number of response attended forms Weller Centre, 26 February 2020 30 11 Weller Centre, 29 February 2020 26 19 Weller Centre, 5 March 2020 25 16 Thameside School, 7 March 2020 70 36 Caversham Baptist Church, 9 33 13 March 2020 Caversham Methodist Church 13 54 22 March 2020 Online Not applicable 23 Total 238 140
8 of 41
Question 13. What is your postcode?
Heat map of postcodes. Red shows the highest concentration of postcodes.
Question 1. How did you find out about the drop-in?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Letter through door 54
Email 40
Word of mouth 18
Social media 15
Poster 15
Other method 14
People could select multiple answers for this question. The largest proportion, 54 respondents stated that they became aware of the drop-ins through the letters that had been sent to their homes. The next highest method was email notification with 40 respondents selecting this option. The lowest was post card and other ways such as local press.
9 of 41
Question 2. On a scale of 1 (not useful) to 5 (very useful), how useful did you find today?
Not answered, 6% 1 (not useful), 3% 2, 2% 5 (very useful), 55% 3, 11%
4, 23%
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
From the 140 responses the majority of the responders 55% or 77 out of 140 found the drop-in very useful. 23% or 32 responders rated the event with a 4, and 11% or 15 responders with a 3. Only 3 individuals rated the event with a 2 and 4% or 5 out of 140 individuals found the event not useful. A total of 6% or 8 individuals chose to not respond.
Question 3. Before today had you heard about our work to reduce flooding in Reading and Caversham?
Not answered 6%
No, 6%
Yes, 88%
No Yes Not answered
10 of 41
Out of 140 responses 132 respondents answered question 3. A total of 88% or 123 out of the 140 indicated they had heard about our work to reduce flooding in Reading and Caversham whilst 6% or 9 individuals stated that they had not with 6% or 8 people did not give an answer. Question 4. If you have commented in the past do you think your feedback has been listened to?
Not answered, 7%
Not applicable Yes, 20% , 55%
No , 18%
Yes No Not applicable Not answered
We had a total of 130 responses for Question 4. A total of 55% or 77 respondents selected not applicable as their answer. From the remaining respondents giving feedback 20% or 28 felt that we have listened to them, 18% or 25 felt that they had not been listened to. Respondents were asked to explain their answers. All responses can be found in the appendices. Question 5. What aspects of today did you find most helpful?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Maps showing extents of flooding 41% 21% 7% 19%
Foam bricks to see the height of the walls 22% 19% 8% 31%
Finding out about flood warnings and how to 8% make a flood plan 17% 14% 43%
Watching the fly-through on the computer 13% 8% 6% 58%
Seeing the before and after photos 52% 17% 6% 9%
Viewing landscape plans of the proposed 4% scheme 59% 23% 5%
Speaking to staff 71% 14% 3% 6%
Very helpful Quite helpful A bit helpful Not helpful at all Not applicable No answer given
11 of 41
During the drop-ins we shared a variety of resources and materials with the public. We asked our visitors to tell us what they thought was most helpful. The feedback shows that speaking to staff was rated as very helpful with a total of 99 out of 131 responses. The fly-through scored lowest with 18 of the 59 individuals reported it as very helpful but the majority (81 of 140) responders did not give an answer. For this question, we provided an opportunity for respondents to add a comment these are included in the appendices. Question 6. Is there anything else that would help you to better understand the flood risk in the area, and our proposals to reduce this risk, that was not available today? To analyse these comments, we applied the themed approach. The common themes identified were requests for: Further information – documents to be publically available Information about construction Additional display materials More scheme specific information. To view the full list of responses please see the appendices. Question 7. I understand that there are a large number of people at risk of flooding in this area.
No, 8%
Yes , 78% Not sure, 7%
Not answered, 7%
Yes No Not sure Not answered
We had a total of 130 from the overall 140 responses to this question. The majority of the responder’s 78% or 109 out of 140 respondents were aware of individuals at risk of flooding within Reading and Caversham. 7% or 10 individuals were not sure and 8% or 11 did not agree with this statement. 7% did not answer.
12 of 41
Question 8. Do you agree with the need to reduce flood risk in Reading and Caversham?
No, 14%
Not sure, 18%
Yes, 62% Not answered, 6%
Yes No Not sure Not answered
We had 131 responses in total for this question. From the responder’s 86 individuals or 62% of the total agreed to the need of reducing the flood risk in Reading and Caversham. 25 were not sure and 20 were opposed. 9 did not answer. Question 9. Do you agree that the design we have shared with you today will work to reduce flood risk in Reading and Caversham?
No, 16%
Not sure, 23%
Yes, 55% Not answered, 6%
Yes No Not sure Not answered
13 of 41
We had 131 out of the 140 responses for question 9. 77 responders (55%) agreed that the design shared at the events would work to reduce flood risk in Reading and Caversham. 32 or (23%) were not sure and 22 (16%) were opposed. 9 or 6% did not answer. We compared how responses to question 9 related to responses to question 8 to see whether, how responders felt about the need to reduce flood risk, influenced their opinions about the design shown. Among the 77 responders who agreed that the design would work to reduce flood risk, 68 also agreed that there was a need to reduce flood risk in Reading and Caversham, the remaining 9 were not sure. Among the 32 responders who were not sure about the design, 15 agreed with the need to reduce flood risk, 10 were not sure and 7 disagreed with the need to reduce flood risk Among the 22 responders who did not agree that the design would work, 13 disagreed with the need to reduce flood risk in Reading and Caversham, 6 were not sure and 3 agreed with the need to reduce flood risk. This shows that those who agree with the need to reduce flood risk, or are not sure about it, also feel that the design presented would work. Those who disagree with the need to reduce flood risk do not agree with or are not sure about the design. Question 10. Do you agree with the overall design of the scheme?
No, 21%
Not sure, 14%
Yes, 59% Not answered, 6%
Yes No Not sure Not answered
We had 131 responses for this question. 82 individuals or 59% of the total agreed to the need of reducing the flood risk in Reading and Caversham. 20 individuals or 14% were not sure and 29 or 21% were opposed. 9 or 6% did not answer. For question 10 (Do you agree with the overall design of the scheme) respondents were given the opportunity to comment. All comments for this question can be found in the appendices.
14 of 41
Question 11. How would you prefer to receive your information?
0 20 40 60 80 100
Email 80
Newsletter 35
Face to face 10
Social Media 6
Website 17
Community group meetings 11
Public drop-ins 28
Other 5
No answer 16
In Question 11 we had 122 responses out of the total 140. The majority of the responders (80) stated the email as their preferred way of receiving updates followed by our newsletter (35) and the public drop-ins (28). This was a combination of question 12 in hardcopy and question 19 in the online survey. Question 12. Please tell us any other comments or feedback Comments received are included in the appendices. Question 14. Age groups
35 31
30 28
25 25 25
20
15 13
10 10 8
5
0 Under 35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Not answered
15 of 41
Question 15. First language
Other, 5% English, 79% Not relevant/not stated, 16%
English Other Not relevant/not stated
From the 140 responses, 191 respondents answered Question 15. 111 responders gave English as their first language. The other languages mentioned included: French, Farsi, Italian, Polish, Portuguese and Welsh.
Question 16. Is your property in a flood risk area?
Not sure, 1%
No, 21%
Yes, 66% Don't know, 1% Not answered, 11%
Yes Not sure No Don't know Not answered
16 of 41
From the total of 140 responses, we had 125 responses to question 16. We had 93 or 66% individuals responding yes, their property is in a flood risk area. 29 individuals responded no and 3 were not sure or didn’t know. 15 individuals did not respond. Question 17. Have you ever experienced flooding?
Yes, 14% No, 77% Not answered, 9%
No Yes Not answered
We had 127 responses to question 17 out of the total 140. We had 19 individuals or 14% responding yes, they had experienced flooding. 108 individuals or 77% responded no and 13 or 9% did not respond. We asked for comments for this question which are included in the appendices. Question 18. What is your interest in reducing flood risk in Reading and Caversham?
120 114
100
80
60
40
20 13 5 2 2 1 3 0
17 of 41
For question 18 we received a total of 127 responses out of 140. The majority of the responders 114 or 81% of the total are residents or homeowners. 4% or 5 individuals who responded they are tenants. 2 people are landowners and 2 more are business owners. In total 9% or 13 individuals did not respond. Question 19. Are you involved in any of the interest groups or resident associations?
No, 58%
Not yet, 2%
Not answered, 11% Yes, 29%
Yes No Not yet Not answered
We had 125 responses to question 19 out of a total of 140. The majority of the responders 84 of 140 or 60% are not involved in any interest groups or residents associations. We had 41 responders or 29% who answered yes and 15 or 11% did not respond. Question 18. Are you involved in any interest groups or resident associations? If yes which?
Other
Heron Island Residents Association
GLOBE
Deans Farm Association
CADRA
CABFAS
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
18 of 41
All Interest Groups stated in Question 19
Bell Tower Association KEG
CABFAS Lower Caversham Community Partnership
CADRA Passenger Boat Association
Caversham Court Gardens Reading Hydro
Caversham GLOBE Regents Riverside Owners Association
Crendon Court Association River meads
Deans Farm Association Thameside
Heron Island Residents Association Thames Path Residents Association
19 of 41
Appendices
Feedback form: Hardcopy version
1. How did you find out about the drop-in? Email Social media Letter through your door Word of mouth Poster Postcard Other (please state) ......
2. On a scale of 1 to 5, how useful did you find today?
1 (not useful) 2 3 4 5 (very useful) n/a
3. Before today had you heard about our work to reduce flooding in Reading and Caversham?
Yes No 4. If you have commented in the past do you think your feedback has been listened to? Yes No Not Applicable Please explain your answer ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5. Which aspects of today did you find most helpful? Please tick the appropriate box in the table below. Very Quite A bit Not helpful helpful helpful helpful at all Speaking to staff Viewing landscape plans of the proposed scheme Seeing the before and after photos Watching the fly-through on the computer Finding out about flood warnings and how to make a flood plan. Foam bricks – to see the height of the walls Maps showing extent of flooding Anything else (please specify)
20 of 41
6. Is there anything else that would help you to better understand the flood risk in the area, and our proposals to reduce this risk, that was not available today? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… General feedback on our proposed scheme to reduce flooding 7. I understand that there are a large number of people at risk of flooding in this area.
□Yes □No □ Not sure
8. Do you agree with the need to reduce flood risk in Reading and Caversham?
□Yes □No □ Not sure
9. Do you agree that the design we have shared with you today will work to reduce flood risk in Reading and Caversham?
□Yes □No □ Not sure
10. Do you agree with the overall design of the scheme?
□Yes □No □ Not sure If you answered no to this question, given that this is the only technical solution we have found to reduce flood risk, what aspects of the scheme would you suggest we change and why?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 11. How would you prefer to receive your information?
□Newsletter □Website □Face to face □Public drop-ins □Community group meetings
□ Pop-ups □Email □Facebook □Twitter □Instagram □YouTube
□Other …………….
12. Please tell us any other comments or feedback ......
21 of 41
About you In analysing the feedback we receive, it would be useful to know the following information if you are happy to provide it. Any personal information you provide will only be used by the Reading and Caversham Flood Alleviation Scheme project team to review the event and not for any other purpose. It will be destroyed on completion of the scheme.
13. What is your postcode? …………………………. 14. Age...... 15. First language...... 16. Is your property in a flood risk area?
□ Yes □ No □ I don’t know
17. Have you ever experienced flooding?
□ Yes □ No
If yes, what type of flooding and how did it impact you? ...... 18. What is your interest in reducing flood risk in Reading and Caversham? (Please tick all that apply)
Resident (homeowner) Resident (tenant/other) University student Business owner Landowner Work in Reading Other (please state) ......
19. Are you involved in any of the interest groups or resident associations? Yes No
If yes, which? ………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for taking the time to drop-in today. Please pop this form into the feedback box at the end of the event.
22 of 41
Feedback form: Online version
Reading and Caversham Scheme Feb Mar 2020 1. Reading and Caversham Scheme Drop in Feedback Survey
1. How did you find out about the drop-in?
Social media
Letter through your door
Word of mouth
Poster
Postcard Other (please specify):
2. On a scale of 1 to 5, how useful did you find the drop in?
5 (very useful)
4
3
2
1 (not useful)
n/a
3. Before this drop in, had you heard about our work to reduce flooding in Reading and Caversham?
23 of 41
Yes
No
4. If you have commented in the past do you think your feedback has been listened to?If No or Not Applicable, please explain your answer...
Yes
No
Not applicable
Comments:
5. Which aspects of today did you find most helpful? Please click in the appropriate box. Should you click on ‘Anything else’, comment in the box provided.
Very helpful Quite helpful A bit helpful Not helpful at all Not applicable
Speaking to staff Viewing landscape plans of the proposed scheme Seeing the before and after photos Watching the fly-through on the computer Finding out about flood warnings and how to make a flood plan. Foam bricks – to see the height of the walls Maps showing extent of flooding Anything else (please specify)
24 of 41
Comments:
6. Is there anything else that would help you to better understand the flood risk in the area, and our proposals to reduce this risk, that was not available at the drop in? Should you have no comment, please put No Comment or N/A, Not Applicable.
7. I understand that there are a large number of people at risk of flooding in this area.
Yes
No
Not sure
8. Do you agree with the need to reduce flood risk in Reading and Caversham?
Yes
No
Not sure
9. Do you agree that the design we have shared with you today will work to reduce flood risk in Reading and Caversham?
Yes
No
Not sure
25 of 41
10. Do you agree with the overall design of the scheme? If you answered No to this question, given that this is the only technical solution we have found to reduce flood risk, what aspects of the scheme would you suggest we change and why?
Yes
No
Not Sure
Comments:
11. How would you prefer to receive your information?
Newsletter
Website
Face to face,
Public drop-ins,
Community group meetings
Pop-ups
Social Media: I.e.Facebook, Twitter, YouTube Other (please specify):
3. Section 2: About you
In analysing the feedback we receive, it would be useful to know the following information if you are happy to provide it. Any personal information you provide will only be used by the Reading and Caversham Flood Alleviation Scheme project team to review the event and not for any other purpose. It will be destroyed on completion of the scheme.
26 of 41
12. What is your postcode?
13. Age group
14. What is your first language
15. Is your property in a flood risk area? Should you want to comment, please do so in the comment box provided.
Yes
No
Not sure
Comments:
16. Have you ever experienced flooding? If yes, what type of flooding and how did it impact you? Please use the comment box provided.
27 of 41
Yes
No
Not sure
Comments:
17. What is your interest in reducing flood risk in Reading and Caversham? (Please tick all that apply)
Resident (homeowner)
Resident (tenant/other)
University student
Business owner
Landowner
Work in Reading
Other (please state)
Comments:
18. Are you involved in any of the interest groups or resident associations? If yes, which?
Yes
No
Not yet
28 of 41
Yes:
19. Lastly, if you have any comments you'd like us to hear, please add these here. We would like to thank you for completing the survey, your feedback is valuable!
29 of 41
Comments: All respondents’ comments have been copied as written, and appear in the table below. Where no comment was given or a blank space left these have been removed. We have corrected some spellings and removed any information that could lead to a comment being traced back to an individual. Question list: Question 4: If you have commented in the past do you think your feedback has been listened to? Question 5: Which aspects of today did you find most helpful. Anything else you’d like to see please specify: Question 6: Is there anything else that would help you to better understand the flood risk in the area and our proposals to reduce this risk that was not available today. Question10: Do you agree with the overall design of the scheme? Question 11 and 12 How would you prefer to receive your information and: Please tell us any other comments or feedback: Question 16 Have you ever experienced flooding? If yes, what type of flooding and how did it impact you?
Question 4: If you have commented in the past do you think your feedback has been listened to?
Total: 42 Not applicable No The river needed dredging overall. Yes Walls proposed that won’t spoil views. Yes Dean’s farm committee has met EA on several occasions.
No Partly, not totally. The wall is still problematic. The destruction of the playground. The destruction of the trees and plants and wildlife. Some photos in the exhibition are incorrect and give a false impression.
No Some key aspects related to walls have not been fully addressed. Some of the aspects have been partially clarified. More detailed information required.
Yes Not reasonable to implement upstream preventions or diversion of water due to excess costs and structural requirements.
Not applicable Haven't had the opportunity. Yes Rumours travel fast. No There appears to be nothing to address concerns of the impact this will have on Dean's Farm. No Most prior concerns relate to the hard engineering features. These are still very present in the new plans.
Yes Did not approve of fund as previously suggested. No No special detail on day to day arrangements/access during flooding on Heron Island. Also it puts Heron Island more at risk contrary to EA principles. No We have asked questions before over the last 2 years and answers are always "we haven't looked at that yet".
No Nobody takes any notice you always do what you want! 30 of 41
No Not enough explanation before-hand apart from flyers on trees etc. Yes Wall heights have come down. Temporary barriers will be used. I am in favour of the plans - queried impact on wildlife. Yes Progress is becoming visible. Yes The current proposals seem a lot less intrusive and are? I could live with. Yes For example keeping height of walls low and finding another solution to embankment along footpath in Christchurch Meadow Not applicable I don't think we are there yet. Not applicable New Resident. Not applicable I heard there was going to be an increase in flood barriers/protection but didn't know details. Yes Always good to see diagrams/pictures. Not applicable I had not commented in the past. Yes Original plans for iteration 1 & 2 were even more damaging to the environment. Yes From what the people have said today some things have changed. Not applicable I've attended previously, but not commented in any way which would affect design. No I gave feedback on the first scheme saying it was all too big. It's got bigger since!! I am concerned about the reliance on pumping for a scheme of this scale. If it is only used sparingly I'd be concerned about maintenance of the temporary aspects, barriers, pumps generators...... Yes Modifications regarding trees, visual impact. Yes Gates in flood wall. Online Survey comments No Still no schedule of works or clarity of budget required, no engineering drawings showing the actuality of the construction. A wall may be built on my property border removing an existing fence but personnel did not know process. Yes In terms of aesthetics, yes. In terms of the overall scheme - NO. Residents did not agree with the overall concept previously. Not applicable I have not commented to you before. Not applicable I have not commented in the past. No We asked you to stop work - you ignored us. No We have expressed concern about the proposals but have had no feedback that these concerns have been acknowledged. No Concerns about the adverse impact on RG4 8DQ have not been addressed. Not applicable Didn't comment before. Not applicable Did not comment therefore question not relevant. No They were not interested in people's opinion and said we are going ahead with it whatever I said. Not applicable I have commented in detail in the past, and asked detailed questions. I was told that I would be given more information when it was available (including details of your modelling to show the impact of the proposed scheme), and that the EA would work with me in relation to the design of its scheme as it relates to the area where I live. None of this happened. I was prompted by the renewed series of drop ins to ask again about this, and have so far received a reply which does give some further information (the technical parts of which I have yet to consider) but fails to address most of the specific questions I have asked.
31 of 41
Question 5: Which aspects of today did you find most helpful. (option h) Anything else you’d like to see at the drop ins/ events, please specify: Total comments: 21 Better visual aids. Bluepages.org It would be good to have the fly through on the computer fed onto a larger screen for the visually impaired. People. Myths and Facts. Actual picture of our house and proposed wall and ditch. Cost? Having schematics out. Worse scenario only. The positive approach to the problem. Already get flood warnings. Timescale and full costs not convinced £30m would be sufficient. I'd like to better understand the different flood risk between rain fall and river flow. ONLINE SURVEY COMMENTS Having plenty of staff on hand to talk to the public. Still no schedule of works or clarity of budget required, no engineering drawings showing the actuality of the construction. A wall may be built on my property border removing an existing fence but personnel did not know what process would be applied to get my permission. It might help if the fact that pumps will need to be and will be employed even with a temporary barrier to pump out the ground water and sewage which will be pressured to rise up through the drains in the event of a major flood, were illustrated. Still couldn't get a definitive answer about how the wall to be built along Christchurch ditch in Christchurch Meadow will be built - the field side of the ditch, in the ditch or on our development's boundary? As our fence runs abutting along the ditch - there is no spare land this side of the ditch, just our boundary railings. Was unable to attend the drop in, but am familiar with, and strongly opposed to this scheme. No details of proposed mill lane flood gates and how residents of Heron Island would be allowed access to emergency services etc. The failure to explain in any way why properties on the "wrong" side of the defences will not be adversely affected. Overall layout of consultation info boards and manning was excellent The drop in I attended was in a cramped environment. The displayed maps were on too small a scale to consider properly. The before and after photographs gave only the sketchiest idea of the appearance of the scheme - sometimes, the flood defence line only appeared at all in the middle distance of the picture. I did not see, and was not told of, any 'fly through', or any foam bricks. Some of the information I was given by the first person I spoke to (Tina Donaldson) was contradicted by the second person I spoke to (Nick Read). Mr Read was not always easy to follow. I did not feel satisfied that I had gained a clear understanding of the EA's position.
Question 6: Is there anything else that would help you to better understand the flood risk in the area and our proposals to reduce this risk that was not available today. Total comments: 32 Explain why extra capacity in the river by dredging is not a good idea. Views and/or map of catchment area of Thames to give background. No. The impact of climate change. 32 of 41
More details on construction timescales and access routes. N/A. No answer given. More factual data. No. No. More details on impact of piling required for the wall (for subsidence risk and any potential insurance liability/legal recourse if needed). N/A. Facts and figures - how often have we been close to repeating 1947 flood in the last 70 years? Will the proposals reduce risk of estate being cut off? Are RBC involved in the proposals to sort out the flood issues at Gosbrook Rd/Amersham Rd. I would appreciate more detail on how the disruption likely by the channel at Reading Bridge could be mitigated if not avoided. Other in future. No it was all very informative. Better visuals - some hard to see the changes and up close features will look very different. No. Protocols for access to Heron Island in event of flood warnings as flood chance itself is rare. Not really. Walls are an old fashioned way of controlling flood risk. No. Input from Reading council on their suggested mitigations to scheme, especially relocation of play area. Profiles of the embankments weren't available. We saw profiles of the ditch and the channel. I'd like to see the embankment profiles; they look very big. More visuals to show how the new river channel could be softened to look more natural. No. A formal presentation explaining the need & proposed solutions. Otherwise these exhibitions are bitty. There are a number of floods historically with EA maps of the flood extent in addition to the 1947 flood. Perhaps showing these too would help people understand the 1947 event was not an isolated anomaly. Flood events: 1974, 1977, 2000, 2003, 2007. Also, I'd like to see how the Power Generation proposal to install Archimedes Screw Turbine fits alongside the Flood Alleviation proposal. Also, how the campaign for a new footpath from the Amersham Rd estate to the junction of Henley Rd and Micklands Rd is being considered, and how the path would be protected from flooding. N/A. Something to explain how the recent plans passed by RBC for putting foundations for the large structures such as flats on the flood plain has not displaced the already high water table and increased the risk of flooding to adjacent properties on both sides of the river? N/A. We understand the flood risk very well since in 20 years water has flooded both Christchurch Meadow and the playing field. Right up to Gosbrook Road, once in 2004 and again in 2014. Some information to specifically counter the false information that the people from GLOBE were talking to people about afterwards? I think there could be better advertising of the scheme? Leaflet drops for houses in the nearby areas. Get local press to advertise? Use local Facebook groups etc. You cannot do works to reduce flooding in some areas that. Modelling data, detailed plans and accurate information.
33 of 41
Why are you still wasting money on a scheme which has already been rejected by the public? I live on Heron Island which I understand to be outside the proposed flood defences. I am extremely concerned that the proposals will worsen the risk of flooding to my home and may isolate the community there - as well as adversely impacting property values. Release of modelling data to Heron Island committee as promised. N/A. Massively more detail of the extent of the risk, and the cost of different forms of mitigation, and of why the proposal does not transfer risk (as opposed to general statements that it won't, which the presentation wholly failed to back up with any explanation of why). An outline timetable would have been helpful. N/A. The flood risk to Reading and Caversham is small, considering that we have had the most rainfall on record this February, which did not even overflow the banks at Kings Meadow. This proposal does not help Heron Island flood risk. 1. I would like to have answers to all of the questions which I have sent to the EA by email in 2019 and 2020.
2 This questionnaire seem to assume that the EA is presenting a single scheme which is (to quote from a later question) "the only technical solution we have found to reduce flood risk". But my discussion with Mr Read left me with the impression that fundamental aspects of the scheme have not been settled at all - in particular as to the height of the flood defences and thus which types of flood the scheme would, or would not, protect against. As the drop in did not set out with any clarity what the different design options were, it is not possible to understand them properly.
3 The drop in was wholly lacking in technical information to allow anyone to understand and consider (I) how effective the scheme is likely to be (ii) what negative impacts the scheme will have on unprotected areas (iii) whether those negative impacts are justified by the benefits. It seems from Mr Read's comments that your modelling shows the original proposal would in certain flood conditions increase the height of flood water on Heron Island by 75-100mm. I saw no written information about this at the drop in.
It is because of these fundamental deficiencies in the consultation process so far that I can only answer "not sure" to Q8 below. If it is possible to reduce flood risk at reasonable cost and with no adverse effects, that would be a good thing. If it is only possible to reduce flood risk at disproportionate cost and with adverse effects on other areas, I would not support it. People who answer "yes" to Q8 should not be taken as supporting all measures to reduce flood risk, whatever the cost or impact.
I have answered No to Q9 because it is impossible to tell from the limited information given whether the design will work or not. To take just one example, there was no detailed information about the way you propose to deal with water migrating from one side of the barrier to the other below ground level.
Question 10: Do you agree with the overall design of the scheme?
Total comments: 45 Yes/ No/ Not Comment sure Yes Dredge the river. No Still unsure of the impact to Christchurch and Hills Meadow especially the channel. Not sure Will the new channel increase flooding in Mill Green? Not sure Flood bunds around Deans Farm area - consider deepening and extending flood channel - cheaper and less disruption.
34 of 41
No I am still not convinced that it would have any impact and reduce flooding. The wall I believe would not change anything - I fear the cutting down of trees and plants - still not really taken on board - the plan reduces the public enjoyment of the river. No There is plenty of documentation/evidence showing that solution based on walls in not the only technical solution. This is an arbitrary statement. Yes Could do more to protect the wider area south of the river. Yes How will the proposed culverts / bypass improve water flow or reduce flood risk. Not sure Parts of the design. Yes Not at the moment. No I don't like the idea of losing the playpark to a channel. No It is your responsibility to design a scheme which retains the natural features of the landscape. I do not feel this scheme addresses these issues. No More emphasis on natural features rather than walls and not to include the cut- through. Yes Could use natural features more. No 700+ households but 1 in 200 year event. What about more funding for Hebden Bridge etc. Also equal risk from groundwater risk. No 1 in 200 years! Will increase risk for some areas e.g. Heron Island. No tree removal, no flood relief channel. No barriers on Heron island. Not sure Widen and dig out Christchurch Ditch, there is a bridge already. What about the beautiful trees not young sapling. No Change colour of the wall to make it look more neutral. No 90% approve of design, just some variations to consider. Path between Crendon Court home fencing and flood wall for access to back gardens for tradesmen (window cleaning? Moving). Consider more natural (white buff) colour bricks instead of red buff. Not sure More use of deployable defences. Spend the money moving Sonning Lock downstream? Yes Define 'large' number of people. No Look at upstream alleviation work. No Look at more eco-friendly solutions. No Need to use NOT technical solution but the natural flood plain. Not sure We only saw one solution – it’s difficult to comment on its suitability. Yes Confirmation of gates to maintain access to river. Yes I accept its inevitability, but am sorry about the major restructuring needed for the flood bypass channel. Not sure This is the only solution you've found for floods of this scale. Perhaps you could reduce your ambition and aim for a scheme that protects 1:100 not 1:200 years events. Not sure No guarantee our access via Christchurch Ditch will not be closed and gate installed to each property. Yes None - once constructed it will melt into the landscape. Yes Better definition of the conditions that would cause the Christchurch ditch to change from working to alleviate flooding (of Christchurch Meadows) to become a problem conveying water behind the proposed flood defences in the area south of Queens Road. No To heavy on the engineering, no clear explanation of the need for the relief channel. No This is a massive engineering scheme, many aspects of which have been glossed over. It would be enormously costly, and disruptive during the building phase. It would be better to allow the flood plains to do their job, and use any available money to provide grants to individual householders to install permanent flood protection measures in their homes. It is of concern that the Environment Agency will not
35 of 41
release their detailed modelling to interested parties, or respond to detailed questions from the public. Yes Yes but the slowdown of run off in the surrounding area and countryside and of the area above Reading/Oxford needs to be improved as well. No I do not believe that there is a flood risk of the magnitude portrayed at the drop in. Yes It might help if Christchurch ditch was cleared out properly and water could be free flowing along it. It is quite a deep ditch/brook and could take more surplus water than it does if it was cleared. No You cannot change floods defences to the detriment of others - I am noting Heron Island, in particular. No The scheme is massively over engineered given the potential risk. The technical information presented was frequently a joke. Various people and organisations have been promised the modelling data on which this scheme was identified since April 2019.
The before and after photos were carefully designed to give a false impression. For example the after photo for Heron Island shows a blue line presumably painted across the road. That will hold back the water. Mill Green shows a wall coming up to chest height of a passer-by. However earlier drawings give the height of the wall as 1.8 m which is consistent with LIDAR data for the extent of flood water shown on mapping. The passer-by must therefore be a giant.
There are a large number of intelligent interested people in the community and they should be treated as such. No There is little risk of flood damage to homes, and your scheme increases rather than reduces that risk. No I understand that you have an obligation not to prejudice one community in benefitting another. I also believe you have a moral duty to act in this way. I am not at all reassured that the community of Heron Island has been factored in to your plans.
My significant experience of major projects and cost pressures heightens my concerns that - although you say it is the only technically feasible solution - it is incomplete and, potentially worse, prejudices my hone and neighbours. Any solution should also protect - and certainly not prejudice - the community I live in on Heron Island. No No consideration for residents of Heron Island, environmental damage, disruption caused by bridge closure, no evidence to prove that increased flood risk is transferred elsewhere. No Concentrate on minimising the likelihood of flooding upstream, by the time the threat has reached Reading it is too late. Not Sure 7. If the question means "are there large numbers of people within this area who are to any extent exposed to risk of flooding," yes. 9. In some places clearly yes. But what will be done to avoid increasing it in others? 10. The EA has made it impossible to do this. See comments on 19. Yes The scheme seems well thought through and I feel the priority should now be to get on with it otherwise we face a flood whilst we endlessly refine the proposals. No I object to the implication that if anyone answers No to this question, they should be able to say how the scheme should be amended. As to that -
1. Please see my comments under Q6 and note in particular that - 2. It is not clear what scheme you are claiming to be "the only technical solution" 3. It is not possible to suggest changes to the scheme without a proper chance to consider the technical basis for it (including the modelling). I have been asking to see that since late 2018. I only received any data after attending the drop in and have not 36 of 41
yet had time to consider it. The covering emails indicated that I have so far only been sent some of the requested information.
Subject to all of that, my general proposal is that the scheme should be altered so that it does not in any circumstances increase the flood risk to any residential premises. It would then be necessary to consider the cost and environmental impact of the revised scheme against its likely benefit before deciding whether it was justified.
Question 12: Please tell us any other comments or feedback
This drop in centre is helpful to see and also to overhear from the wider community who may not be in one place to share their experiences, concerns etc. I would like to see more dredging and more ??? of the river. This would relieve the minor floods but they do occur regularly. (I think this was meant to say more dredging and come capacity in the river). Also selected for 11, face to face and public drop-ins. Has any contact been made with Reading Hydro? How it will potentially affect the plan. Flood gates at west end of mill green: bottom panel damage due to illegal vehicle assess is a possibility. Has any investigation been done into the level of ground water that may increase due to the River Wall at the front to the building, in particular number 22? As a home owner at the edge of the potential flood area, it concerns me that there seems to be a pressure group opposed to the scheme. Even getting TV air time. Their concerns seem to have been met in full, so I think the time has come to press on, ideally with the full 1 in 200 year plan. £30 million is not such a lot of money. Good exhibition. If glass topped walls are used we need to understand how the glass will be maintained from scratching/vandals and general ageing - it may become opaque over time and not be fit for the designed purpose. I still get the impression that information is being used in an incorrect and manipulative way in order not to have a fair debate but have this scheme imposed on us at all cost. I still need convincing. Staff have been very helpful. Visual presentation clear and easy to follow. Would really like to see this go ahead. I think you should go ahead, everything looks good. Disappointed no fly through or foam bricks. Already receive the newsletter. No high plants to hide wall. Email I support the scheme and would like to see it implemented in full as soon as possible. I'm concerned some people have commented on the height of flood walls - I prefer them to be the height required, not to rely on temporary wall toppings.
Very approachable and knowledgeable staff. Excellent presentation. Email I like the look of the scheme and hope it all works out. I don't agree with the scheme for the following reasons: 1 Visual impact, 2.disruption whilst being built, 3. Downstream impact i.e. to Sonning Eye 4. We should focus on prevention i.e. not giving planning permission for buildings on floodplain. Public drop ins. Everyone and all the staff were informative and lovely.
37 of 41
Public Drop Ins, Email. 1. Gates at Heron Island: a) how do residents get in or out? B). When would they? C) What do we do with our cars? D) How do emergency services get access? E) False Alarms 3/4 flood warnings so far this year. - Would we have been excluded from our houses despite no flooding? F) Groundwater. How would scheme affect sewage and pumping station on Heron island? The back access to Crendon Court is in regular use. I'm in favour living in area at risk. It’s not as bad as scaremongers are making out. People will get used to it if it goes ahead. We were lucky not to flood this year. Public drop ins, Email, Facebook. How will this affect wildlife (walls will stop movement). Walls are easier to climb over than fences. How will security of property be accounted for? Website, Public Drop-ins, Email. Design of new bridge that will replace part of Reading Bridge needs to be sympathetic to the old bridge. Caversham has been well protected by use of weirs. If Sonning Lock were down stream then water could be 'dumped' beyond the town as it is here then could be on a single channel where currently twice as much water is uncontrollable. You've done a great job. Stylish designs and much needed work. This has to be done ASAP, living by the river is very nice but stressful every year. Public drop-ins, Community Group Meetings, Email, Facebook. A scheme with some big proposed changes but could be sensitive to wildlife and environment if handled correctly. Very patient staff thank you. A great scheme - well thought out and designed. There are a few residents putting up posters and complaining about this scheme from a visual aspect of walls and removal of trees. Today what I have heard at drop in mitigates against these concerns. Crendon Court residents need access to the river i.e. all properties that have gardens. 1,2,3,4,9,10,12,14,19,20,21,22 Very good information session. Overall the plan looks good to me though there is still a lot of money to be found to fund the project. The only drawback is that all the measures, before/after pictures, plans etc. are 'tentative' and not definitive, so it’s always hard to agree/disagree on something that might change. A useful event. Thank you. Curb your enthusiasm. Aim for mitigation of less extreme floods - those that are currently deemed 1 in 100 years. Aiming for mitigation of 1 in 200 year floods is too expensive, not great value for money and the models are more likely to be incorrect the more extreme the event. Crondon Court no. 1,2,3,4,9,10,11,12,14,19,20,21,22 would all need a gate to retain access to rear gardens for window cleaning, repairs etc. All these have gardens with rear access. Need to ensure coping on top does not allow it to be used a step over fence. I would like to attend other meetings as the design is firmed up so that iterations of design can take in residents and ideas. I see real potential to use the new channel for canoe slalom training and competition, with minimal investment in permanent posts and overhead wires to suspend slalom gates (slim wooden poles) above the water. Reading Canoe Club, sited upstream of Caversham bridge, hosts slalom canoeists training year-round. The training there is limited due to passing river traffic, which would not be an issue in the new channel. Channel dimensions of approx. 150m length by 25m wide would be ideal, closed to powered river traffic, and the height of the new road bridge appears adequate to allow the passage of canoes/kayaks. Reading CC works alongside Reading Borough Council to deliver canoe/kayak introductory sessions and courses to the public each summer, as well as providing facilities and coached sessions for club members. The potential should not be overlooked to link the flood relief channel to a local sports amenity to benefit the local community, Reading Canoe Club and other groups of local canoeists. I'd be happy to be contacted to develop further this idea:[email protected] The exhibition focused on the aesthetics of the completed scheme, which have been improved. However, the fundamental objections remain unchanged.
38 of 41
It might help if it were illustrated, the fact that pumps will be employed even with a temporary barrier to pump out the ground water and sewage which will be pressured to rise up through the drains in the event of a major flood. It could be made clearer to sceptics of the scheme that unless there is a barrier it will be much more difficult to get rid of any floodwater back into the main watercourse and away. It will also be difficult to pump away any surface water coming down the hill and ending up on 'the wrong side' of the barrier, so some kind of barrier will have to be constructed. I would have felt more secure if the wall had been extended along the backgardens of the houses in Patrick road with temporary flood gates to be fitted across their rear access to the park by the agency in times of major flood. Was this idea considered? I do however understand their objections to a mound or earthworks as their privacy would have been overlooked and the opportunity for ASB increased. I am very concerned about: The £3m already spent on a scheme for which there appears to be no scientific or historical evidence. The destruction caused by Jacobs when performing their surveys. Including damage to bird nesting areas, uprooting of hedgerows which I helped to plant and then replant! The loss of trees (including the willow saplings by the Dannel) Why do the EA call it the Caversham Ditch? The white tops to the proposed walls which will be wonderful for all our graffiti artists. The effect on the environment. The proposed new channel which I cannot understand how this will alleviate flooding as it will already be full of water! Please see comments above. Get it built! It is a no brainer! Why wouldn't it be build? Do the tree-huggers who think that some sort of bamboo flood barrier will somehow do the job actually live on/near the flood plain? I am guessing they probably don't!! I do and I want the flood defences built as soon as possible. Global warming is happening people - it is a matter of when not if a significant flood event hits Caversham. That is a fact. I would reiterate the above - it must surely be unlawful to change flood defences to the detriment of a neighbourhood. We will not accept these changes without a battle! This survey is totally biased a designed to give support the answer you want. No option to question whether the scheme should go ahead. Furthermore given that you totally discounted the outcome of the earlier consultation, I think it very unlikely that you will pay any attention to anything that doesn't support your extremely expensive unjustified scheme. Stop this waste of money. Please please please factor in the interests of the Heron Island Community. No. Money should be devoted to providing solutions to flooding in areas of higher risk as evidenced by the recent widespread flooding in northern and midland areas. This form is quite worthless. There is no way to say you object to the proposals unless you are in a position to suggest a change. As the EA has already broken numerous promises to make its modelling available, absolutely no-one can begin to do that. While that is the most striking example, many other questions on this form are absurd: like with road safety and healthcare, you can hardly object to reducing flood risk as an aim in isolation, but whether to go ahead with a particular proposal means looking at costs, detriments and so on as well. Neither this form nor the presentation allows that to be done intelligently. The scheme seems well thought through and I feel the priority should now be to get on with it otherwise we face a flood whilst we endlessly refine the proposals. Is the expense worth protecting against a 1 in 200 year risk of serious flooding? I strongly object to this project! It will only help to increase my flood risk. I am sorry to have written in such critical terms, but I would not want you to claim that the recent 'drop in' exercise has been a meaningful consultation. I hope that you will consult properly before making any application for planning consent. Question 16 Have you ever experienced flooding? If yes, what type of flooding and how did it impact you? Total comments: 29 39 of 41
No yes Being a boat operation we live with it. No Spoke to Lewis Purbrick 3 or 4 years ago, Latharge erected a fence between the bottom corner of deans farm lakes and it's river. I don’t know if they obtained planning permission. Are you aware of this fence? And is it a potential hazard in a large or major flood event? No yes Front garden. Groundwater in rear garden. Yes No answer given. No If flooding is defined as "internal flooding" then no otherwise my garden has been flooded. No Flooding in the street from poor drainage and surface water in the neighbour’s gardens. Yes I had to walk round. Yes 1947 and lower Caversham. No I didn't flood in 1947. No No Not sure You would say so, we didn’t' even flood in 1947. Yes When we moved to Caversham in 2014 we witnessed the flooding around Christchurch Meadows while living in Deans Farm. Was pretty alarming at the time but no damage of severe consequence. Yes Carpark - I had to move my car. Yes Garden started to fill up, thankfully none inside the property (yet). No No Only Loddon in Winnersh. Yes In garden. Yes The undercroft parking was flooded, car had to be moved. We had to walk along George St to get to Reading. Yes 2014. River water in our garden. Ground water under the house in a crawl space. No Yes 2007 at risk of flooding moved everything upstairs but fortunately house didn't flood. No Surrounded house, sewers struggled. Online Survey Comments: Yes Although, I don't believe it's at risk of flooding. It's not since it was built 130 years ago. Yes Marginal to the 100y flood extent. Yes Never actually been flooded. Yes It is just on the edge. It is believed it has never flooded and did not flood in the 1947 but narrowly avoided flood, being slightly higher than properties nearer the Gosbrook Road end and on the Christchurch Meadows side of the road it’s at the top end of the drainage run. Yes Please see previous comments. Yes You cannot change the flood defences to the detriment of a neighbourhood. No We are not now at risk, but will be if this scheme were ever implemented. Yes You will, I am sure, be aware of Heron Island. No Although close to the river there has been no flooding since the houses on Heron Island were built. No Not even when Greenland and Antarctica melt.
40 of 41
41 of 41
Lit code details to be inserted here