Consultation on Thames Water's Teddington Direct River Abstraction (TDRA) scheme closes today at 11:59pm Monday 11 December. 

The proposals include taking water from the Thames by Teddington Weir, transferring it through existing underground tunnels to the Lee Valley reservoirs, and then replacing it with treated wastewater from Mogden Sewage Treatment Works.  

Nevil Muncaster, strategic resources director at Thames Water, said: "The scale of the water resource challenge means we must make bold decisions and act now to ensure we have the water we need for generations to come. 

"Given this, we must find ways to adapt to our changing climate, supply water to more people as our population grows, and reduce the amount of water we take from our rivers and chalk streams to protect the environment. 

"Investing in and building new infrastructure is integral to the plan and we're calling on the government to support ambitious projects, including a new reservoir in Oxfordshire and a river abstraction and water recycling scheme in West London." 

Thames Water is asking for feedback on the potential sites for the new structures, pipelines and shafts that it thinks would be needed for the project.  

The company have appraised 23 sites, spread across seven locations, and is asking the public for comments on the proposals.  

First Shaft Pipeline

Nub News Commentary: Of course the plan needs to start somewhere. However it feels like a bold attempt to use a sewage treatment plant (which is one of the biggest sewage leakers) as the site of a new clean water scheme. Perhaps resources should be focused at fixing a problem instead of adding a new operation.

Mogden sewage treatment works (STW) is the only proposed site for the first shaft pipeline. This location would minimise off site development and take advantage of existing infrastructure however, Thames Water would have to ensure operations at the site would remain unaffected.  

The Guardian reported between early 2019 and May 2023 the STW spilled 20.6bn litres – the equivalent to roughly 8,000 Olympic pools, according to data released by Thames Water in response to an environmental information request. 

The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) revealed today that More than 200 tankers of human poo were shipped into Camberley from across Surrey, Hampshire and London, saving Thames Water millions in potential pollution fines and its sewage trucks from "exploding". 

Intermediate Shaft 1 for recycled water pipeline 

Nub News Summary: Between a car parking block and a hard retail place, Thames Water do not overwhelm the public with good choices.

Option 2 for the shaft is in Ivybridge Retail Park car park north. Thames Water claims the car park would not "be expected" to create ecological impacts but could feel the impact from adverse air quality, noise and vibration from the construction process. It acknowledged the site would restrict parking spaces and potentially impact retail units, residential areas. It also said the community and recreational facility Bridgelink Centre would require "mitigation". 

Option 3 involves a pipeline underneath retail units. The proposal booklet states: "It is not currently clear whether this would be feasible" as details of the retail unit foundations are unknown at this stage. Option 4 between Summerwood Road and Ivybridge retail car park would mean disruption in local amenities and bus services. 

Shaft 1 Option 2 is Thames Waters' preferred site as "it is considered to produce "marginally less impacts, and is accessible for a pipeline alignment". 

Although a consultation process must legally take place when the process is in its formative stage, the number of speculations surrounding Option 3 seem disconcerting. 

Intermediate Shaft 2 

Nub News Summary: Human impact is disturbingly evident in both options, despite no real assurance how it may be mitigated by the private company. It is surprising Thames Water states there "could be potential impact" if a 10.5m shaft is built in the middle of a recreational playing field.

Option 1 is the centre of Moormead and Bandy Recreational Ground and Option 2 is to the south of the same location.   

Despite Option 1 proposes a shaft (10.5m in diameter) in the centre of Moormead's park- with a new cricket boundary, football pitch, sports pavilion, play area and outdoor gym, the document states it only the pitches "could potentially be impacted during construction". This seems unconvincing due to the speculation of shaft positioning on other sites.  

Option 2 would be below the access path, to the west of the tennis courts and nearby the railway line. It would potentially limit pedestrian access to the park and existing play areas. The document states "further investigation" on the shaft's proximity to the railway would be needed, perhaps not filling residents with confidence.  

Thames Water judges Option 1 as having the "best opportunity to minimise and manage" noise, vibrations and construction disruption from dust and surface run offs so it is the preferred option. However, it goes into no detail how the company would mitigate this.  

Intermediate Shaft 3 

Nub News Summary: Heritage and Conservation assets are viewed as a minor inconvenience to potential river transport for construction workers. 

Option 1 on Ham Street car park would "temporarily" remove access to the river at this point while it may need up to 26 HGVs a day over eight months to construct the shaft site. There is also a risk of flooding during construction which will need consideration and "potential mitigation".  

Option 2 is situated at the South of Ham Street car park and to the west of Ham Street recreational open land. This site could minimise the disruption to Ham Street and provide flexibility with location of the actual construction site. 

The main issue with Option 1 is the "entire site" is "within Ham House Conservation Area, within both Archaeological Priority Areas within a registered park and Grade II listed building. It acts as a "priority habitat" for birds, bats, badgers and stag beetles on the borders. The site is also home to  unique species including the brown hairstreak butterfly, the yellow vetchling flower and the hairy bush-pea. Thames Water acknowledges a full heritage assessment is likely to be needed. 

Despite the heritage and conservation hoops, Option 1 is still viewed as the private company's preferred option. Construction workers "may benefit from the ability to" use river transport and existing car parking area (unlike the residents). 

Intermediate Shaft 4 

Nub News Summary: Thames Water will have to make significant public mitigation for Option 1 to be viable and not too disruptive 

Option 1 and 3 are very similar here. Option is the land to the west of Riverside Drive playground, while Option 3 is Land at Riverside Drive and Ham Street. Both are in open space, could facilitate a shaft and limited site clearance would reportedly be needed. Both sites allegedly have a "low ecological value" however, they are situated within Ham Fields Archaeological Priority Areas therefore assessments would be required ahead of time.  

Significantly, Thames Water adds there would be a "permanent loss" of a "very small area" of Metropolitan Open Land for the shaft access. As both Options are near residential properties, Thames Water must consider how it will mitigate air quality, noise and vibration impacts during construction, as well as access to green space and disturbing the playground.  

The main drawback for Option 3 is it is located directly adjacent to Ham House Registered Park and Gardens, therefore enlisting similar heritage and conservation problems as above. Option 1 is Thames Water's preferred Option as it is considered to have "lesser highways and heritage impacts". 

Intermediate Shaft 6 

Nub News commentary: Thames Water considers disruptive public proposals to highlight the 'lesser evil' 

Option 1 for the shaft is located in Ham Lands, west of Riverside Drive; this could impact nearby residential properties, users of nearby roads. Within Ham Lands Local Nature Reserve, a protected species survey would need to be pursued and mitigation required to avoid the loss of habitats and trees.  

Option 1 and 3 are both near residential properties; Thames Water must consider how it will mitigate air quality, noise and vibration impacts during construction, as well as access to pedestrian pathways. Option 3 (Lands at Dukes Avenue) is close to schools and educational settings, as well as bus routes, therefore providing a more complicated process of mitigating disruption.  

Option 4 at Ham Green is in an informal open space however the shaft construction could be difficult to integrate within regeneration proposals. Similar with Option 3, it is close to schools and youth centres, as well as residential areas and conservation properties therefore disruption of air quality, noise and vibrations would need to be considered.  

Thames Water judges Option 1 as its preferred option because it enables "some separation from residential receptors and achieves a good level of access".  

The consultation

Residents and stakeholders can respond to the consultation here.

Afterwards the Independent Response Analyst company IPSOS will provide a report on resident feedback. Meanwhile Thames Water said it will be continuing its designs for the project.  

Then, when the report is complete, Thames Water said it would take in consideration the residents' preferred route of the TDRA for the best of the community.  

An engagement officer said the report would be "analysed" but could comment no further on how the feedback would be processed in the report.