The developer wants to increase the size of this little culvert at the Buckingham Arm (shown above). The Environment Agency say the culvert cannot be scaled up – it holds back water from escaping too fast into the River Great Ouse. If it is increased in size that would exacerbate the flooding in Stony Stratford and downstream in Newport Pagnell.

“...the site may be at risk of great depths of flooding with vehicles being potentially lifted in deep flood water. The northern site could potentially be cut off if flood water submerges the Spine Road with Old Cosgrove Road and Stratford Road already submerged..” 

The Environment Agency

The Environment Agency (EA) initially - and over a period of two years - objected to the developer’s first four proposals, citing concerns over lost soakaway due to extensive tarmac and concrete. Despite claiming at the outset that the site does not flood, the developers have now submitted a fifth flood mitigation plan for 2025, which attempts to revert to an earlier approach that enlarges the canal culvert to accelerate drainage. The previous proposal (August 2023) involved a Flood Storage Area (FSA) storing 44,000m³ of water (about 20 Olympic-sized pools) in attenuation lakes and an earth dam.  We pointed out that this scheme constituted a high-risk reservoir and the EA agreed.  This is a major engineering project, and its size will require stringent regulation including a supervising engineer to monitor it during construction and every year after that.

We, along with Old Stratford Parish Council, commissioned hydrology consultants to assess the latest planning documents. Their report concludes: “The Flood Response Plan lacks key information, inaccurately assesses flood risks, and should be rejected by the EA and LLFA.” A full copy of the report is available here.

In June 2025, the EA unexpectedly withdrew its objection but imposed stringent conditions. The EA rejected the developers preferred minimal mitigation plan in favour of the Flood Storage Area (FSA) to manage site and downstream flood risks.  However, the EA does not consider the plan to be sustainable and has urged the Local Planning Authority to carefully review its viability. 

In their letter, they stated that they ‘do not find this proposal to be a sustainable development as it introduces a residual risk to the catchment downstream. We recommend to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) that they should carefully consider the overall sustainability of the principle of the Flood Storage Area (FSA). Although this mitigates the flood risk to the site resulting from the development, it is introducing an additional engineered residual risk’.  Despite ongoing concerns, developers have not fully explored safer alternatives, such as relocating the project.

The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)  also deemed the developers’ submission inadequate.  In their letter dated May 2025, they state that ‘We do not consider that sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development is a sustainable solution with respect to management of flood risk within and downstream of the site’. 

Additionally, the EA still has major concerns about site contamination, requiring assessment and remediation to prevent water pollution, and have also imposed stringent conditions relating to this aspect.  Failure to meet these conditions would lead to a renewed objection, as the development could pose an unacceptable environmental risk.

Crucially, the EA’s withdrawal of its objection does not mean the development is  safe; it simply means that conditions have been set and must be scrutinised carefully. We questioned the EA as to why their previous objection was withdrawn despite ongoing concerns regarding increased flooding downstream and they clarified that ‘some of the conditions require information to be submitted prior to the commencement of the development and so the development should not go ahead until this information has been received and approved.’ 

We must continue to demand accountability and transparency to ensure local flood safety is

not compromised.

Large, raised reservoirs may be classed as high-risk when human life would be endangered if the dam fails, causing an uncontrolled release of water. If this dam fails it would cause a potential loss of life as well as calamitous flooding upstream in Stony and downstream in Newport Pagnell. 

“We note the compensatory Flood Storage Area (FSA) is proposed to hold a large volume of flood water and that it will fall under the ambit of the Reservoirs Act 1975.....and it will be most likely considered a ‘high’ risk reservoir due to its location.” 

The Environment Agency