“We are sending a message to the Secretary of State and Thames Water: this is not acceptable.”
Cllr Bethia Thomas, Leader’s Report to Vale of White Horse District Council, 22nd October 2025
A motion, proposed by Cllr Peter Stevens (Lib Dem) and seconded by Cllr Sarah James (Greens), against the reservoir was carried unanimously at the recent VoWH DC meeting. The motion condemned Thames Water’s (TW) actions in its recent pursuance of the proposed reservoir, asking the Secretary of State to commit to a re-evaluation of the company’s plans and a transparent evaluation of the alternative options of water transfer from the Severn to the Thames (STT) and water efficiency measures.
The meeting was supported by unprecedented civic turnout — the highest public attendance recorded for a Vale council meeting in recent years. Speaking with clarity and conviction, contributors raised concerns about cost escalation, flood risk, environmental impact, and the exclusion of viable alternatives. Their presence and testimony reinforced the urgency of reassessing the reservoir project and the need to consider more sustainable, cost-effective options such as the STT.
In essence, all (Council and the public) agreed that it was not acceptable that:
- A £2.2 billion proposal has quietly ballooned to £6.5 billion or more, with no independent review.
- The cost tipping point between the reservoir and the alternative STT scheme was breached — yet no formal reassessment has taken place.
- At the June 2025 Judicial Review, Thames Water maintained outdated cost figures only to revise them dramatically weeks later.
- The “adaptable” Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP24) is now functionally unworkable, with STT’s decision timeline lagging far behind that for the proposed reservoir.
- Experts, campaigners and community advocates have engaged in good faith — yet their evidence-led concerns have been sidelined.
Cllr Stevens underscored the environmental and financial risks posed by the reservoir, the unsupported need, and the spiralling, unreviewed costs — while highlighting the case for the alternative STT scheme, a more resilient and cost-effective option that continues to be sidelined, and which must be re-evaluated alongside the reservoir. Councillors from across the Vale stood united in opposition, reflecting broad political consensus and community alignment.
Cllr Sarah James, Leader of the Green Group, and seconder of the motion, stated:
“Residents can have no confidence in Thames Water’s calculations… This is just a hugely expensive and damaging white elephant that will massively inflate bills for all Thames Water customers for decades to come.”
Cllr Sally Povolotsky, independent, representing Steventon and the Hanneys, urged councillors not to “duck the real fight”, calling on them to use their influence through MPs and political platforms to demand national accountability.
“My villages are already flooding — homes, businesses, and potentially lives at risk. This is coming at us faster than a freight train. It’s the Vale’s HS2 — a disaster waiting to happen. We must stand firm and say again: SESRO is not justified. It is not sustainable. And it must not proceed without a transparent, evidence-based, independent national review.”
“Because when the land is flooded, heritage lost, natural environment destroyed and the damage is done, its our
children and grandchildren who will ask why didn’t we act with everything in our armoury when we still could’.
Cllr Andy Cooke (Liberal Democrat, Drayton) re-emphasised his long-standing commitment to the STT scheme, highlighting once again its major qualities, of earlier delivery, lower cost and lower project risk of delay or cost-escalation. He emphasised the ‘unproven’ and ‘experimental’ nature of the proposed reservoir in terms of existing reservoir expertise and experience.
Cllr Robert Clegg (Liberal Democrat) also spoke in support, emphasising that the Council was not powerless in this and had an opportunity to put the new Secretary of State on the spot to demonstrate a fair and reasonable approach and hold companies to account, not just on sewage but on water supplies.
Public testimony
Eight speakers addressed the meeting before the motion, covering technical, financial, governance, environmental, water quality, flooding and safety concerns.
Derek Stork , GARD Chair, outlined the main issues which GARD had highlighted with the reservoir, none of which had been examined transparently: the unproven need, at a time when the government’s own figures showed a water need declining; the alternatives of leakage reduction and water transfer which would be demonstrably cheaper and more resilient to climate change; the escalating costs of TW’s proposed reservoir, still not well-grounded as it omits many outstanding design issues and is based on insufficient knowledge of the site; the flooding risk and the undocumented safety issues; and the strong likelihood of serious water quality dangers from the untreated water of the times pumped into reservoir and left to brew.
Mike Greig, GARD Finance Lead, covered the huge cost escalation, and the remaining risky estimate, highlighting in particular TW’s actions in trying to keep the cost-escalation under wraps until after the Judicial Review. Similar points were emphasised by
Hugh Rees, from West Hendred, who also tackled the huge financing cost falling on customers from Ofwat’s funding mechanisms for strategic projects.
Andrew Jones, an engineer from Didcot, questioned the logic and cost of the reservoir, contrasting it with pipeline alternatives, such as Anglian Water’s 205-mile scheme costed at £500 million. He noted that a Severn to Upper Thames route would be significantly shorter,
with minimal impact on the Severn Estuary’s daily flow, and could deliver water faster, more cheaply, and with greater resilience.
Marion Mantle, resident of East Hanney, spoke of TW’s actions in trying to paint a duplicitous rose-tinted picture of the reservoir’s appearance and landscape impact, whilst refusing to engage on the issues of flooding, safety and social disruption. Similar points were made by Bob Anderson, who also spoke in favour of less environmentally disruptive alternatives such as water transfers. Dave Marsh, Vale Secretary of CPRE, emphasised
CPRE’s long-standing opposition to SESRO, and support for the motion. Mark Beddows, delivered a reasoned, supportive message from East Hendred Parish Council, stating its opposition to the project.
Next steps: DCO consultation and public accountability
The Council’s motion and planned letter to the Secretary of State mark an important step. However, letters alone are unlikely to be enough. With the Development Consent Order (DCO) consultation opening on 28th October, GARD urges the Council to engage actively and publicly — making its objections visible, amplifying its concerns across channels, and ensuring local MPs are held to account.
The Council has the evidence, the mandate, and the public support. Now it must act with urgency and clarity — and make its voice heard where it matters most.
| Council’s Formal Resolution The Council’s full formal motion is detailed below, as recorded in the official agenda and endorsed unanimously by all parties present. The council notes that: – The TW Water Resources Management Plan 2024 (WRMP24), approved by the Secretary of State in November 2024, was explicitly an adaptable plan with options — including the proposed reservoir as the preferred option and STT as a back-up. – Despite TW’s assurances in October 2024 that cost estimates were robust and regularly updated, a capital cost increase from £2.2 billion to £6.5 billion ± £1bn (2023 prices) was announced in summer 2025. At the Judicial Review (25th–26th June 2025), TW maintained the £2.2bn figure. Yet mid-August, just seven weeks later, TW publicly revised the cost to two to three times that amount. – TW’s October 2024 response stated that the tipping point between STT and the reservoir lies at a cost increase of £669m–£803m. – RAPID has advised that the Gate 3 decision for STT is scheduled significantly later than the reservoir, undermining the plan’s adaptability. The DCO process must evaluate the choice between the reservoir and STT, given the above. The Council believes that – The emergence of much higher costs post-Judicial Review fundamentally undermines the “best value” case for the reservoir, especially compared to STT, and has had no independent review. – The reservoir will have a huge and lasting effect on our residents. – It is unacceptable for any private corporation to be given a “blank cheque,” regardless of massive increases in cost which would typically necessitate a re-evaluation of cost-effectiveness between two options. The council resolves to ask the Leader to request of the Secretary of State and RAPID that: – The Secretary of State directs TW to prepare a new WRMP in light of the very material change in costs. Whether retaining the old WRMP or preparing a new one. – RAPID Gate 3 decisions for SESRO and STT should be aligned. – Any DCO process for SESRO should evaluate the cost-effectiveness and timelines of the strategic water options in the TW WRMP24 (namely SESRO and STT), using up-to-date capital, finance, and operational costs directly associated with each, especially should these have changed since the relevant WRMP was approved. – Going ahead with STT in place of SESRO should be regarded a valid outcome of the DCO and Gate 3 processes, ensuring that TW cannot continue to escalate the costs and/or lengthen the timelines beyond those approved in any WRMP as they belatedly learn essential design elements and major issues. – Ask the Leader to write to all MPs representing parts of the Vale of White Horse to inform them of Council’s actions and request their support in pressing the Secretary of State and RAPID for the same. |
