Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Environment

Forward Plan Ref: 2018/040

Contact: John Disley, Policy Strategy Manager Tel: 07767 006742/Amanda Jacobs, Principal Transport Planner Tel: 07825 314772

Report by Director for Planning & Place (CA7).

Thames Water are currently consulting on their Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 which looks ahead over the next 80 years to 2100.

The consultation documents outline the proposed demand management and water supply options that Thames Water are considering.

The key issues raised in this response to the consultation are: The need for a reservoir in Abingon, Thames Water's population forecasting on which they are basing their preferred programme for water supply, the need to maximise their current infrastructure through prevention of leakages, and water trading.

Cabinet is to note that the report has been compiled by non-technical specialists. Thames Water has submitted a large body of evidence that would require significant resource including technical specialists to fully summarise and assess.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to endorse the key issues raised within this report as the response to this consultation, including the request for immediate and regular discussion with Thames Water on the proposed reservoir in terms of its catchment and location.

Thames Water are currently consulting on their Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 which looks ahead over the next 80 years to 2100.

The consultation documents outline the proposed demand management and water supply options that Thames Water are considering.

Cabinet considered a report setting out the key issues and seeking approval to the draft response  to the consultation.

Councillor Webber, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group and councillor for Sutton Courtenay & Marcham, stated that he had been heavily involved from a district perspective during the previous iteration and he was aware that this was the third or fourth iteration. It affected not only his Division but everyone in Oxfordshire. It was estimated that the reservoir could attract 1million visitors per year and this would add to the pressure on infrastructure. The process was funded by public money and previously cost up to £45m and then opponents had had to fund the opposition to public enquiry stage. This found in favour of the opponents of the reservoir and he found it difficult to see what new arguments were being brought forward other than the population figure being higher. Councillor Webber highlighted the arguments on population forecasting whilst noting that this was a regional facility. In relation to the science he noted that so far the only voice being heard was Thames Water and he urged Cabinet to ensure that Group Against Reservoir Development (GARD) were given an opportunity to present their arguments. Councillor Hudspeth, Leader of the Council replied that he had no objections to the proposal that GARD provide a briefing to councillors but that the same offer should be made to Thames Water. He proposed that officers investigate the opportunities for briefings for all members from GARD and Thames Water.

Councillor John Sanders highlighted Thames Water’s poor service record with his constituents. Councillor Sanders also referred to the lack of ambition in the target of reducing water leakage by 15% over seven years and to the fact that they intended to sell water. He was concerned that there would be insufficient consultation with local people and asked Cabinet to note the proposals with concern. Councillor Hudspeth stressed that Cabinet were not endorsing Thames Water proposals but were asked to endorse the key issues raised by officers.

During discussion Cabinet heard from officers on the population figures and that Thames Water accepted that the figures were moving all the time. Cabinet endorsed the key issues and commented on the need to update the creaking water infrastructure, with water treatment plants not being updated and some areas having supplies turned off to address sediment issues. It was suggested that the Council continue to challenge Thames Water robustly over the need to consider other areas in the region.

RESOLVED:              to:

(a)          endorse the key issues raised within this report as the response to this consultation, including the request for immediate and regular discussion with Thames Water on the proposed reservoir in terms of its catchment and location.

(b)          ask officers to investigate the opportunities for briefings for all members from Group Against Reservoir Development (GARD) and Thames Water.