home link
join us link take action link latest news link contact us link
thames waters plan link
gards alternatives link
bullet WATER RESOURCES
bullet PUBLIC INQUIRY
bullet LOCAL CONCERNS
bullet ABOUT GARD
bullet DOCUMENTS TO DOWNLOAD
bullet LINKS
   

This website has been created using the best information available to GARD at the time of its compilation. The opinions expressed are based on GARD’s perception of the issues involved and the stance taken by Thames Water with regard to their proposal to build an Abingdon Reservoir. The views expressed in this website, which GARD reserves the right to change ahead of the Inquiry, cannot necessarily be taken, therefore, in whole or in part to represent GARD’s position at that Inquiry;;;.

LATEST NEWS

If you haven't signed our petition please click the image or click here!

petition

 

Reservoir Expert Slams Thames Water’s “very limited” Reservoir Design

Professor Chris Binnie – former member of the Government’s Reservoir Engineers Panel, and former Director of W S Atkins, has slammed the ‘design effort’ by Thames Water on their Abingdon (SESRO) Reservoir proposal.


You can link to a pdf of this report
[Click here]

Adequacy of current designs
Professor Binnie’s report concludes that there is very limited engineering detail available in the Thames Water proposals (consultation documents and those released since). Little progress has been made since 2007.
Amongst major scheme items which would need much more work on design before the scheme could be approved are: factors of safety along the 10 km length of embankment, given the known variability of the soils, and the potential human and physical impact of dam failure; flatness of the embankment slopes (against slippage in construction); the quantities of rip-rap (large rocks) for the protection of embankments against wind-generated waves; and the reservoir inlet/outlet schemes, especially those needed for emergency drawdown.
On this topic, Professor Binnie concludes that:
The risk of embankment failure and the resulting loss of life and economic damage
need to be taken into account in the safety factors assumed in the embankment
stability analysis which will determine the embankment slopes. Therefore, in my
opinion, the dam break analysis should be undertaken before the design is finalised
for the regulatory and DCO approval.”

Trial embankments
The Preliminary Jacobs report in 2007 recommended that a large scale
trial embankment with a height of at least 20m should be built, to establish the soil parameters for analysing embankment stability and leakage, as well as providing information on constructability and cost of the embankment. Thames Water now proposes to delay the large-scale trial embankment until after the construction of the reservoir has been approved through the Development Consent Order, proposing  instead to construct a much smaller trial embankment, only 3m height and over a far smaller area than the large-scale trial planned to be conducted later during construction.

On this topic, Professor Binnie concludes:
“ … the initial 3m trial embankment will not provide sufficient information to
reliably determine the embankment slopes and cost of the reservoir…  
The large-scale embankment, […]  is needed to determine the embankment slopes and
inform reliable estimates of construction costs […]  the large-scale trial should be completed before the scheme design, and costs, are submitted for DCO and regulatory approval. I think it would be unsafe for the Government to make a decision on whether SESRO reservoir should [.. go ahead..]  before the main trial bank findings are established, the design known, and the dam break assessment completed.”

Cost implications
The report is damning on Thames Water’s purported cost estimates for the Reservoir

“ The current Thames Water proposal for SESRO is to seek WRMP and DCO approval prior to
carrying out the dam break analysis, prior to the main field soil trial embankment, prior to the main stability analysis, prior to identifying sources of imported riprap and drainage material and thus prior to finalising the design of the embankment and outlet works. These all carry high potential for generating cost over-runs.”
and
“Dams are notorious for cost over-runs. Aside from Carsington dam which failed during
construction, with consequent large cost over-run, in the past 40 years there has been no UK experience of the design and costs of new large dam construction.”

 

RAPID/Ofwat and the Gated Process

In our June news we said we would be publishing our letter to Ofwat/RAPID about their lamentable scrutiny of the Strategic Water schemes (like the Abingdon Reservoir). You can find it here. (link to pdf).

Rapid have declined to make a written reply, but we have had round table meetings with them, on some subjects and more are planned. We will continue to press them to take their scrutiny responsibilities more seriously.

We need your support on this. The Regulators must take on the Water Companies more vigorously!



GARD will keep up the pressure on WRSE and Thames Water to drop the ruinous Reservoir project from their plans. We now have unanimous local political opposition on our side. Find out how to take Action and join us, and keep up to date on GARD Facebook.


GARD

If you wish to join GARD, lifetime membership is £10 (under 18s and full-time students £5). I you wish, you can use our online membership application form. <Just Click Here>


ABOUT GARD (Group Against Reservoir Development). GARD is a group of individuals whose aim is to identify and promote viable solutions to meet the future needs of water users in the Thames Water Region. GARD is advised by eminent water industry practitioners. Our committee is composed of voluntary, unpaid members with technical experience, each of whom is free from any political or vested interests. Click here for names of committee members and advisors.

 

 
NEWS BRIEFING

 

Thames Water challenged by Oxfordshire Campaigners’ call for Public Inquiry into ‘Mega Reservoir’

The Oxfordshire community-based group GARD has called on the Secretary of State for the Environment to order a Public Inquiry into Thames Water’s plan to go ahead with their “unacceptable, unnecessary and expensive” proposal for a huge reservoir near Abingdon, completely ignoring strong opposition in their consultation process.
GARD maintains that Thames Water’s justification for choosing this project, as opposed to the reasonable, cost-effective and more environmentally friendly alternatives, is seriously flawed. Alternatives include cutting their extremely high levels of leakage to industry-average levels, and boosting the extractable River Thames flow by transferring new water by pipeline from the River Severn. The justification’s serious flaws include the following:

  1. Thames Water have overstated the future demand for water the population increase on which they base demand would involve a south-east population increase greater than that of the whole of England.
  2. The need for the larger 150Mm3 (million cubic metres of water) option which is included in the revised draft WRMP (as opposed to the smaller 100Mm3 option on which the public were consulted) has not been sufficiently justified. As a result, the consultation process carried out was inadequately and unfairly done.
  3. The cost of the reservoir has been seriously underestimated by Thames Water and there has been a lack of transparent cost comparison against other potential resource options.
  4. Thames Water should prioritise bringing their huge leakage level down to the industry average, to help meet the demand for water.
  5. The reservoir’s drought resilience has not been adequately assessed by Thames Water. The reservoir would be situated in a water-stressed area and would not be sustainable in a long drought. ‘New water’ from outside the Thames catchment is needed via water transfer from the River Severn. The water transfer option would provide water security more rapidly (six years earlier) and at lower cost to consumers.
  6. Thames Water’s Strategic Environmental Assessment is legally flawed, and their general assessment of the environmental impact of the reservoir is inadequate, biased, and does not demonstrate an overall positive environmental benefit.
  7. The safety and flooding implications have not been addressed, as Thames Water has rejected demands for transparency in how floods will be mitigated and the consequences of a major fault in the reservoir embankment.

 

CLICK TO READ MORE  bullet

 

Ofwat/RAPID fail to make key decisions on, and proper scrutiny of, the Strategic Water Projects at their ‘Gate 2’ evaluation.

  • GARD and others make critical responses.
  • GARD asks for key Recommendations to be added to RAPID’s decisions for next stage

Ofwat’s Agency ‘RAPID’ published its ‘draft Decisions’ on the ‘Gate 2’ submissions on the future Strategic Water Resource Projects (which include the Abingdon Reservoir and the Severn-Thames Transfer) on 30th March and opened the draft Decisions for comment
.
Contrary to the orginal aims of the RAPID process, RAPID have not ordered any project to be discontinued. All projects: The Reservoir, the Severn-Thames transfer and the rest, will continue to go through this publicly funded  process to the next stage (Gate 3 in late 2024/early 2025).

Almost worse than this lack of decision is the lack of scrutiny which RAPID are applying to the proposals. Nearly everything is rated ‘Good ‘, even though some of the backing documents are riddled with inconsistencies, and errors.

GARD has responded to RAPID’s consultation on 11th May. The response document can be found
at GARD-response to Ofwat

  • GARD believes that the Reservoir should NOT be allowed to proceed for further evaluation UNTIL a proper public assessment of the Reservoir’s safety and flood risk potential has been carried out and published. We are also opposed to the wastage of further public money on the Reservoir in these Ofwat/RAPID studies (your water bills are paying for this).

  • GARD has made several Recommendations and has written to Ofwat/RAPID demanding that these be taken into account (or a written justification why not.

We will be publishing our letter to Ofwat/RAPID (here and also on Facebook) and also any response they make.

When we publish the letter, we will be asking Stakeholders to support our position.

Ofwat/RAPID will make their final decisions on 28th June.

You can also find GARD’s response document to Thames Water’s draft plans  Here

 

CLICK TO READ MORE  bullet

For older news and information
CLICK TO READ MORE  bullet

WHAT CAN I DO

There are many ways in which you can get involved with the campaign.

bullet  Join Us

bullet  Take Action

CLICK TO READ MORE   bullet
SEE THE MAP

map
The previously proposed Abingdon reservoir layout.

CLICK TO READ MORE   bullet