OXFORDSHIRE County Council has joined a chorus of local voices demanding for a second consultation on 'half-finished' plans for a reservoir the size of Heathrow Airport near Abingdon.
Thames Waters’ plans – which have been widely criticised during a long-running saga – could now be further delayed if a coalition of various councils, local pressure groups and an MP get their way.
The charge is led by the Group Against Reservoir Development (GARD), which said the first consultation earlier this year was 'shambolic', and Wantage MP Ed Vaizey, who called the proposal 'half a plan'.
A series of letters have now been written to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, calling for another public consultation.
County council leader Ian Hudspeth criticised the initial consultation, which finished in late April, and asked for clarification on various aspects of the proposals.
Following a motion unanimously supported by the council last month, Mr Hudspeth also called on Thames Water to reduce leakage, improve water-use efficiency and provide a proper analysis of water available through other measures.
He wrote: “I am therefore writing to Thames Water, Defra, the Environment Agency and Ofwat, requesting that a second consultation be undertaken due to incomplete information or errors on the information used to base their recommendations.”
The council’s intervention coincides with moves by Wantage MP Ed Vaizey, district councils and local pressure groups to oppose the plans.
Adding his voice to the calls for a second consultation, Mr Vaizey wrote to Environment Secretary Michael Gove to say Gard had ‘a clear and justified case.’
He said that Thames Water had ‘essentially disowned’ leakage and admitted that potential key elements had not been included due to lack of time or information, meaning the first consultation was ‘compromised’.
He added: “My constituents and all stakeholders were unable to respond properly to what was, at best, only half a plan.”
However, Mr Vaizey came out against the Vale of White Horse District Council’s call for a public inquiry, labelling it ‘expensive and time consuming’.
Claiming that the initial consultation had been ‘shambolic’, Gard chairman Derek Stork said the ten-year construction period would ‘cause major disruption to Oxfordshire life and lasting increased risk of flooding and visual scarring of the landscape’.
Mr Stork said: “Oxfordshire stakeholders were unable to respond and deserve a second chance to see and criticise the plans.
“This time we sincerely hope that Thames Water will be more transparent about the costs and environmental risks of their options, as they have been criticised by the Environment Agency and Ofwat for the lack of information made public."
The Wantage and Grove Campaign Group is also supporting calls for a second consultation, while South Oxfordshire District Council said it was important for residents ‘to feel like they’ve had enough of a chance to have their say’.
Abingdon Town Council, meanwhile, said it ‘does not have a position on the matter’.
A spokesman for Thames Water said: "We’ve conducted a thorough and in-depth public consultation over our Water Resource Management Plan and are now assessing responses before deciding the next steps.
"We take everyone’s views seriously and would like to thank those who took the time to engage with us during the consultation.
"We’re determined to have a robust plan to provide a secure and resilient supply of water to our customers, both now and for future generations."
A Defra spokesperson added: “We expect water companies to consider all options in their long-term water resources plans, including new water transfers, reservoirs and improved demand management, to make sure water supplies remain secure in the future.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel