Following on from our earlier blog post describing the outcomes from our meeting with Cathryn Ross, co-CEO of Thames Water, here’s the letter written by MP for Twickenham, Munira Wilson, an extract from which is detailed below.
As you know, I have been challenging these proposals on behalf of residents since they were first announced. As new information has come to light, the strength of feeling has only grown – with almost 30,000 people having signed a Change.org petition, hundreds more having signed a petition that I will present in Parliament, and thousands having responded to Thames Water’s consultations.
Munira Wilson, MP Twickenham, letter to CEO of Thames Water, December 12 2023
In addition to raising residents’ concerns directly with Thames Water, I have also raised them with the Environment Agency, as well as with DEFRA Ministers and Ofwat. In a debate I held in Parliament in September, I asked the former Water Minister Rebecca Pow to take the Teddington DRA proposal off the table – which the Government has the power to do.
This brings me to the crux of the matter: The current consultation, the Site Options Consultation, asks residents to choose which construction options they prefer, in terms of the potential sites for new structures, pipelines and shafts that would be needed for the Teddington DRA.
However, many residents have told me the current consultation is built on a flawed premise, because residents do not want to be forced to choose between construction options: they do not want this scheme to go ahead at all.
I am therefore including below my official response to the Site Options Consultation, which sets out the reasons why I, and thousands of my constituents, believe these proposals should not go ahead, and the Teddington DRA should be removed from Thames Water’s Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP).
It is important to state from the outset that local opposition to the proposals is not about residents saying “not in my backyard” for no good reason; we believe this is a deeply flawed proposal, with compelling rationale for why it should not go ahead.