We object because Thames Waters customer and public engagement is fundamentally flawed.
Flawed Thames Water Customer Surveys.
As noted in 2023 Ofwat questioned the sufficiency and quality of information provided to customers in the draft WRMP24 and arising from that if there really is evidence that customers support the options proposed – including TDRA.
It is important to remember that the 2023 consultation was about the WRMP24 plans in general – not specifically TDRA. TDRA was presented, along with 2 other so called strategic schemes, as the must have solutions to the problems described in the WRMP plans.
Over 1,600 people responded to the draft WRMP24 consultation. In relation to TDRA Thames Water noted: “There were a large number of responses objecting to this scheme [TDRA]. Concerns were raised about the impact on the river and effects on public health and the ecology. There were also concerns about new infrastructure on the riverbank and the construction of an underground pipeline, alongside the disruption this would cause to the local community.”
What is interesting here is that the topics raised in responses are quite specific; impact on the river, public health and riverbank infrastructure. Specific and detailed information on these issues for TDRA was not included in the dWRMP24 consultation. Somewhat detailed information (to some extent) on TDRA was available in RAPID Gate 2 documentation. Nothing in the draft WRMP24 consultation referred people to the Gate 2 data. This demonstrates that responses critical of TDRA especially on those topics were likely from people (and organisations) that tried to get information on and to understand the wider implications of TDRA – so the responses were of an informed public.
In May 2023 Thames Water/Verve organised a survey on the WRMP24 plans with the following objective “to ensure voices from the Thames Water catchment area, that are representative of Thames Water’s customer base, are heard and considered in refining the draft plan”.
The customer base they are referring to are the 15 million odd population in the Thames Water region. 123 people took part in the Verve survey, over 5 sessions, estimated 90 minutes in total: 1 session of the 5 related to the 3 strategic schemes in the WRMP24 plan including TDRA.
The importance of the survey to Thames Water is because “public consultations are often completed by those who are very engaged with the issues either because they are part of an organised group or because planned developments will directly impact where they live and as such, the feedback to consultations is not always representative of the general population”.
The basis of the survey was information from the consultation materials plus the concerns of what is described as the “local” community. The consultation materials give NO information on possible alternatives (except a dismissal of Beckton reuse as too expensive). Drought issues featured heavily as an imminent threat in survey information but no information on how drought futures are developed in water resource planning or the link between levels of service and drought; no link between TDRA and river flow and usage and the environment.
Collaborating with other water companies and communicating with the EA was presented as proof that development of TDRA was the best (and only) solution. By presenting concerns as “local” Thames Water undermined the range of opposition to TDRA. It must be noted that opposition to TDRA is not just local - a range of organisations responded to the consultation including for example the Kew Society and Thames21 (Kew Society response to Thames Water Consultation on proposed TDRA Scheme // Thames21’s response on Thames Water’s river abstraction plan at Teddington - Thames21)
A specific example of how the survey clearly points respondents in particular directions is when they were asked about the timing of the options: a slide is shown with the proposed dates when options will be in operation. TDRA is 2030. The slide states that this timing is because Thames Water needs to improve resilience by 2030 (not specifically true), that the option is needed to keep the Thames flowing (a bit dramatic), and the other options are more expensive (very simplistic). The question is then asked “Here are the timings of the plan. What are your thoughts overall about the plan?
No alternative timings are presented, no discussion of alternative options and long term future impacts and the “need” by 2030 is not explained properly.
The company that ran the survey (Verve) used their Ignite AI tool to analyse the survey results. The Ignite AI analysis tool /facility was released in 2023.
Ignite AI assessed the “sentiment” associated with the survey responses to gauge that three quarters of responses had “positive sentiment” about TDRA.
Faced with a possibility of extreme and imminent drought, with only one suitable solution and only “local” concerns against the assurances from Thames of no impact and in fact some possible benefits, it is hardly surprising that the survey results specific to TDRA show that some people feel in favour of TDRA.
The Verve/Thames Water survey was in 2023. It included the following statement “Collaboration with the Environment Agency, (…) , brought a level of reassurance to participants (especially Non-Household customers) as it is seen as a trustworthy body that specialises in prioritising the environment.” In 2025 perhaps that ‘level of reassurance’ would be somewhat different as a lot of the general population would have seen “Dirty Business” by Ch4 which highlights many severe issues with the regulation of the water industry.
Thames Water use the 2023 research to justify their WRMP24 plans including TDRA: customers want it and they want it now. That same survey continues to be used to prove that “the public” wants TDRA.
In the final WRMP24 plan best value plan produced in 2024 Thames Water had this to say: “Whilst there was some sympathy to the objections being raised by local communities, overwhelmingly customers felt the benefit to water supplies outweighed any local concerns around environmental harm to this part of the river.”
The use of the Verve survey and the attitude shown by Thames Water to people that respond to consultations is incredibly condescending. Thames Water essentially dismiss people that respond to consultations by implying that “very engaged” people somehow do not represent the general population. Yet they are happy that 123 people informed by partial information in a survey are in fact representative of the Thames Water population.
Engaged people look for answers, look at information, look for evidence of best value, of future proofing, they may not accept simplistic dramatizing of drought; engaged people will see “local” as in fact the wider environment and ecology of the river Thames and the Thames Path and the health of all river users.
There was and continues to be a lack of information provided to by Thames Water to the public and their own customers; there remains a lack of credible investigation of alternatives to TDRA and a very biased presentation of contextual information on drought and drought planning and best value interpretation. Ofwat made a good point in 2023 and it remains a good point which must be addressed.
A NOTE on other research around water resource planning
Thames Water refer to a whole range of surveys and research as evidence of support for the WRMP24 which promotes TDRA.
A lot of research shows that customers strongly favour solutions that focus on demand reduction first, favour solutions that are long term, and want solutions that include environmental benefits and human benefits.
As an example of a statement that should give pause to anyone thinking that TDRA represents what customers want is the following from Water Resource South East (WRSE) in 2020/2021.
“Customers recognise that a pragmatic mix of options are required …. Leakage reduction, demand measures, and new supply sources are not seen as substitutes. Rather it is the timing and ordering of options that matters most to customers. First, companies must get their “own house in order” by reducing leakage and helping customers to save water. After this, the right supply options for customers are ones that are reliable, avoid environmental harm, and provide wider benefits including enhanced local amenity and recreation opportunities”.
Everything in that statement represents what TDRA is not; It is being rushed to a Thames Water timeline instead of focusing first (financially and otherwise) on leakage reduction and smart meter installation. it is not reliable in drought and climate changes to river flow; it will add 75mld of treated sewage to a new location in the river Thames adding to the pollution load; it has no local amenity benefits nor recreation opportunities.
TDRA is money, effort and time wasted instead of reassessing the best water supply options for London and the south east.