GARD’s Guide to responding to Abingdon Reservoir Statutory Consultation:
- Why it is important to respond. Thames Water’s Abingdon Reservoir proposal is now at Statutory
Consultation stage. This is the last major public opportunity for residents to comment on the project
before it enters the Development Consent Order (DCO) process and becomes a legal matter. A
strong level of public engagement matters because:
- Every response is formally recorded and reported.
- Themes raised by residents – reflected in the Environmental Statement and DCO submission.
- Widespread local concern may affect how decision-makers view SESRO.
• Silence is interpreted as consent.
- How to respond (If you’re unsure where something fits — include it anyway.)
Best option: Use the official SESRO questionnaire Questions 7–16 (scroll down to ‘have your say’) Responses to each question
are tallied, categorised and summarised separately. Critical responses are most impactful when
submitted through the questionnaire structure.
Acceptable: Email a free-form objection SESRO@ipsos.com . These will still be counted, but they may be logged as a
single “general objection.”
Brief response: a short questionnaire or email response still counts. - How GARD supports you but DO NOT CUT & PASTE
Each question in Thames Water’s consultation directs you back to specific pages of their Statutory
Consultation Brochure which, written by the project promoters, naturally puts the reservoir option in
a positive light. GARD’s view: the brochure glosses over risks, uncertainties, and drawbacks.
GARD will show the key issues and offer material for each question. Put your response into your
own words. Do not cut and paste because Thames Water’s analysis software treats large numbers
of identical submissions as “template responses” with less weight. It gives full weight to personally
worded responses. - Key Issues
Quality of information / consultation: Engagement with individuals and communities is a legal
requirement. Were materials and presentations: clear, balanced, transparent about alternatives; did
they adequately explain risks; were they written as a sales document; was their information easy to
find and allow you to make an informed judgement?
Harm during and after construction: How will 10–15+ years of lorries, traffic, noise, dust or road
closures affect you, your family, your children, your school run, your job, your wellbeing? What
does the loss of farmland, countryside, wildlife, and the risk of future flooding mean to you and your
community?
Things missed out: tell Thames Water that you can’t give informed feedback on the following
because key information is missing — –
- Reservoir size increased from 100 – 150 billion L, without consultation. What are the risks,
cost/benefits? Landgrab has grown from 13 sq km to 38 sq km not done: Flood
assessment/modelling. Dam Breach assessment (risk / evacuation realities if a fault developed).
Emergency draw down and effect on downstream communities Cost increase unexplained. ‘Best
value’ comparison to Severn Thames Transfer not done – updated costs not intended until after the
SESRO consultation is closed
What do the Questions mean?
Response to Thames Water Development Consent Order HELP WITH QUESTIONS
Q7 Please provide us with your comments on our Indicative Master Plan:
Overall layout / footprint of proposed reservoir: its size, shape, very large land-take; how the
embankments and infrastructure would sit in the landscape.
Height and proximity to homes; FLOOD RISK – suitability of site? and whether such a large structure
is appropriate here.
Nature and biodiversity: destruction of existing habitats and farmland – can they be compensated
for? Can you believe in the promised “space for people and nature”?
Amenities / leisure paths /community activities more important than SAFETY and FLOODING?
Alternative water resource options would cause less damage.
Q8 Please provide us with your comments on our draft Design Principles. Do you believe in
Thames Water’s design principles under these five themes:
1 Safe & Well: Cannot judge if scheme is genuinely safe because: Not done: Flood
assessment/modelling; Dam Breach assessment (risk / evacuation realities if a fault developed);
Emergency draw down and effect downstream. Concern about water quality: E. coli,
Cryptosporidium and algal blooms are inadequately addressed, could affect supply, access, odour
and long-term cost. 2 Value: – local economic impact during long construction years; the traffic
burden; has Thames Water has behaved transparently? Does project represent value for money?
3 Climate: carbon cost; have nature-based solutions have been
prioritised? Is the reservoir truly resilient to future drought — GARD wants this independently
verified. 4 Place: will scheme enhance local environment?
Are biodiversity gains realistic? Do you trust Thames Water to deliver them?
5 People: lack of genuine community
involvement: scale of daily disruption during construction; lack of information on traffic, school
impacts, air quality, road changes and landscape loss; concern about long-term safety and fairness.
Are promised “community benefits” believable?
Q9 Please provide us with comments on our current design proposals for the infrastructure needed
to operate the reservoir, as well as utility diversions and renewable energy. Lack of emergency
draw down design; size and immature design of embankments; results of clay compaction trials and
delays due to groundwater conditions not included, so impact on design not consulted on; little
information on utility diversions / community impact; solar farm relocation onto arable land,
Q 10 Please provide us with your comments on our current proposals for the reservoir’s
environmental features All unnecessary if site not touched. Now high biodiversity. Active Zone 3
flood plain, hedges, grassland, arable land, woodland, protected species, ancient /veteran trees,
watercourses, canal route.
Q11 Please provide us with your comments on our current proposals for access to and around the
reservoir site,
Impact of construction traffic; severe impact on all traffic on A34, A338, Frilford, Wantage, A415;
rebuilding / re-siting of Hanney / Steventon road. Impact on family and work life for 10+ years. Once
in operation: TW claim to encourage sustainable travel / discourage car journeys BUT in preliminary
transport assessment they anticipate visitor 8000 cars per day in peak summer. Not detailed in doc.
Q12 Please provide us with your comments on our current proposals for amenity and recreation
facilities on the reservoir site. Proposed leisure facilities unlikely to materialise:
One: ‘potential’ access and recreation will only be allowed once dam breach analysis and terrorism
threat assessment have assured public safety. Two: biosecurity – e coli, cryptosporidium, algal
bloom risk not adequately addressed in current plans, leading to restricted access for public health;
Response to Thames Water Development Consent Order HELP WITH QUESTIONS
closest reservoir of this design / scale, the Queen Mother (Staines): a quarter of the size with
restricted access. Three: limited budget, rising cost – money needed to meet environmental targets
not to build cafes and sailing clubs.
Q13 Please provide us with your comments on how we propose to build the new reservoir, This
includes how we’re planning to manage construction impacts through use of the rail line to bring in
materials, our draft Code of Construction Practice, construction access points to the site, planned
locations of construction compounds, and construction timeframes. Has enough weight been given
to construction impact through 13 years? Does timeframe work when plans keep changing and new
challenges arise? Have you had enough information about code of construction in the consultation
materials? How will rail and road construction affect you?
Q14 Please provide us with your comments on the preliminary environmental information,
summarised on pages 100 to 113 of our Statutory Consultation Brochure, contained in our
Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report and the PEI Non-Technical Summary Do you
think the summarised details provide here are balanced or misleading and are they adequate as
basis for public consultation?. Does this contain the information you need to comment on the effects
to the water, terrestrial, soil, air quality, landscape etc.
Water environment: misses out FLOOD RISK. ‘Significant temporary adverse effect’ of discharging
into the Thames for emergency testing – doesn’t mention the risk if an actual emergency occurred.
Air quality: 1800 worker car journeys and approx. 400 HGV movements will affect air quality.
Greenhouse gases: Likely significant adverse effect
Terrestrial ecology and Geology / soils: disruption of habitats, not recovered for years. We’ll lose
(TW says) some of the ‘best and most versatile agricultural lands’. Aquatic ecology: moving
watercourses bad for wildlife. Landscape and visual: creating an artificial landscape. Destroying
ancient Vale Major accidents disasters – they state: we ‘have not identified any likely significant
effects from major accidents or disasters during the construction or operation of the project’ yet will
prepare an on-site emergency plan which will be shared for emergency planning purposes. Dam
breach (during operation), collapse of banks during construction – cause delay.
Human health: ‘significant risk ‘ to school children – exposure to bad air;
mental health effects Historic environment: majority of archaeological fieldwork out of date (over
30 years old) – new and contextual discoveries in immediate vicinity. Advanced LiDAR flight should
be done – Geophysical techniques have changed, key areas should be re-surveyed. The aerial
photographic analysis for the area is not released to public. Need an assessment of a “great
Common” for the Wantage Hundred Traffic transport: impact of traffic and delays for over a decade,
see preliminary traffic assessment. Materials and waste: transport by road – pollution / CO 2 Rail –
affect Steventon Socioeconomic / communities: it fails to address traffic impact on
economics locally for 13 years. Climate resilience: FLOODING due to extreme weather is
ignored. Increased likelihood of flood, droughts and storms. Delay to clay compaction trials because
of flooding. Can they fill huge reservoir in a drought – a series of dry years is a problem for Farmoor.
Q15 Please provide us with your comments on our draft sustainability priorities and objectives,
described in our draft report on Delivering a Sustainable Legacy for People and Nature. Thames
Water say sustainability priorities are to: ‘protect water resources; enhance the environment; provide
new green and blue spaces for leisure and recreation; involve and contribute to the local
community; support carbon net zero; adapt to climate change; use resources efficiently and
minimise waste; and support an inclusive local and regional economy.’ Do you think they could do
better?
Q16 other comments
