LOCAL MP’S FULL SUBMISSION TO THAMES WATER ‘SEWAGE PUMP’ CONSULTATION
Local MP Munira Wilson has decided to publicly share her detailed objection to the so-called Thames Sewage Pump which Thames Water calls the Teddington Direct River Abstraction (TDRA) scheme.
A massive campaign of local opposition against the scheme has been spearheaded by SOLAR (Save our Lands and River) with thousands of protest postcards being sent to Thames Water’s HQ.
The period of public consultation ends on August 26.
In a hard-hitting and wide ranging submission personally addressed to Thames Water’s Chief Executive, Chris Weston, the Lib Dem MP who has actively campaigned against the scheme from the start says:
*Trust in water companies is at rock bottom
*Construction upheaval would create havoc for nature
*The River Thames at the beating heart of our community
*Where is the evidence from Thames Water’s that the TDRA is the best value option
*Scrap the TDRA and invest in real solutions
Here is the full letter:
Chris Weston
Chief Executive Officer
Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Clearwater Court
Vastern Road
Reading
RG1 8DB
6 August 2025
Dear Chris,
Re- Response to TDRA Statutory Response to Consuktation – protecting our precious river.
I am submitting this letter as my formal response to the Statutory Consultation that is underway for Thames Water’s Teddington Direct River Abstraction (TDRA) proposals, which would replace water with treated sewage above Teddington Lock.
As you aware, I have been raising concerns about these proposals on behalf of residents since they were first announced.
You will remember from our meeting last year that we are extremely concerned about the environmental impact of the TDRA proposals, including on water quality, human health, biodiversity and wildlife.
This is not to mention the construction upheaval that would wreak havoc in precious local nature areas.
Whilst I appreciate that Thames Water is consulting residents, it doesn’t change the fact that, time and time again Thames Water has failed to make the case that the Teddington sewage recycling proposals are the right proposals to achieve its stated objective of ensuring drought resilience.
This is particularly true given that more viable alternative proposals are available; that the environmental, construction and social impacts still have yet to be fully assessed; and that Thames Water’s contention the TDRA represents the ‘best value’ option still has yet to be proven.
This is not to mention the issue of trust.
Trust in water companies was already at rock bottom; the shocking revelations about Thames Water’s financial state – alongside the recent Independent Water Commission Report – have put these concerns into even sharper relief.
I believe the TDRA is, in short, the wrong answer to the right question and that, for these reasons the Teddington TDRA should be removed from Thames Water’s Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) once and for all.
Environmental Impacts
On any given day, our beautiful river and its banks are alive with people out and about enjoying nature with their sporting clubs, youth groups, schools and families.
The River Thames is at the beating heart of our community on both sides of the river – from Twickenham to Teddington, from Ham to Richmond – which is why Thames Water’s proposals are so concerning.
Unanswered questions around water quality
I was pleased when, at the end of last year, the Mayor of London and the Environment Secretary announced a 10-year water quality plan that included prioritising our stretch of the river at Teddington for wild swimming.
Yet, I was also perplexed, given that the River Thames in Teddington already had the sixth greatest concentration of PFAS in the UK between 2019-2022 (eleven times above safe levels set out by the EU).
Shocked by these revelations, I introduced a Bill in Parliament to require water companies, by law to limit the levels of these dangerous chemicals in our water supply.
With PFAS levels already high, I have challenged Thames Water about how it will ensure that proposals to pump treated effluent into the river above Teddington Lock won’t add yet more dangerous chemicals into our precious river.
Question: What assessments has Thames Water made of the impact of the TDRA on water quality in a stretch of river that is already at risk?
Will Thames Water commit to releasing release raw pilot tertiary treatment plant water quality data (including PFAS) as soon as it is available?
Tertiary vs Quaternary treatment
Thames Water maintains that tertiary treated sewage is safe. Yet, that standard wouldn’t meet Europe’s revised standards for wastewater – the Revised EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (2024/3019).
The EU’s revised standards would mandate quaternary treatment (by 2045) for projects greater than or equal to 150,000 population equivalents.
This level of treatment would target micropollutants such as pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.
Question: Though the UK is no longer obliged to abide by EU standards, it begs the question – Why should we be satisfied with lower standards? Should we not aim for the highest possible standards water quality?
Why is Thames Water not considering quaternary treatment?
We would love nothing more than for the water at Teddington to be safe for everyone to swim in, but we struggle to see how this is compatible with Thames Water’s TDRA proposals.
Apart from human health, there are still too many unanswered questions about the impact on wildlife and biodiversity.
Construction Impacts
I was pleased that, following the last consultation, Thames Water issued revised designs for the TDRA that scrapped controversial construction elements in Moormead Park (alongside three other sites).
This followed pressure from me, councillors, campaign groups and local residents.
However, whilst this was positive news in saving Moormead Park, it doesn’t change a fundamental fact – that residents do not want the Teddington DRA to go ahead at all.
‘Best value’
As residents, campaigners and I have consistently stressed since the proposals were first announced we are not questioning the need to have robust drought resilience plans to future-proof our water supply.
What we are arguing is that the Teddington proposals are the wrong proposals to achieve these objectives – particularly given Thames Water’s dire financial state and the fact that better, more viable alternatives are available.
Though Thames Water has consistently maintained that the TDRA represents the ‘best value’ option we have yet to see the evidence behind this claim.
Thames Water is the worst offender in the amount it loses through leaks – just under a quarter of its entire water supply.
Yet, the TDRA would only save a fraction of the hundreds of millions of litres of water that Thames Water loses every day through leaks.
Nevertheless, Thames Water remains intent on pursuing a scheme – with an estimated whole life total expenditure of almost £1bn – which will, at best, be used every two years (if the company survives long enough to see it through).
As precedent, one need only look at Beckton Desalination Plant in East London, which was built at a cost of £250 million but only used on three occasions since 2010.
The TDRA scheme is only ‘necessary’ because of decades of underinvestment in water resources, and Thames Water’s own documents have referred to a ‘short-term planning problem’.
This leaves bill payers and residents rightly asking: Why should they fund yet another white elephant that could damage both the ecology of the Thames, and river users’ health, for very limited gain.
The bottom line is that the TDRA is yet another example of Thames Water failing to invest in the essentials whilst pouring millions of pounds of bill payers’ money into short-term fixes that do nothing but produce new assets for the company to borrow against.
Question: Where is the evidence that proves Thames Water’s claim that the TDRA is the ‘best value’ option?
Does ‘best value’ option simply mean the ‘cheapest’ option?
Lack of trust and Thames Water’s Financial State
All of this comes against a backdrop of a complete lack of trust in Thames Water, given scandal after scandal around eyewatering leaks, illegal sewage dumping, exorbitant executive bonuses and Thames Water’s precarious financial position.
In mid-July, Thames Water reported a £1.6bn loss over the last year, whilst sewage spills increased by a third.
In May, it was fined £122.7m for breaching rules on sewage spills and shareholder payouts. Meanwhile, customer bills are going up from £488 to £639 a year.
Thames Water is completely unable to guarantee financial security, as shown by KKR’s decision to abandon its offer, despite interventions from Downing Street, whilst residents are literally paying the price for Thames Water’s mismanagement through rising bills.
Question; With Thames Water declaring itself on the verge of collapse, how can the TDRA be justified?
‘Legacy’
Against this backdrop, it should come as no surprise that local residents don’t trust Thames Water when it tells us that human health and our precious environment will not be compromised.
The bottom line is that the Teddington DRA just doesn’t add up.
These ill-advised proposals don’t even scratch the surface of the problem they seek to resolve, whilst causing as yet unquantified harm to people and the environment.
In the statutory consultation questionnaire, Part 5 is titled ‘Legacy and benefits’. If we are truly to leave a better legacy for our environment and for future generations, we must start by scrapping the TDRA and investing in real solutions that truly address the challenges we face.
Yours sincerely,
MUNURA WILSON MP
Member of Parliament for Twickenham