RURAL NEWS!

Notes from Meeting of Reservoir Affected Parishes (RAP) group held on Wednesday 27 February 2008 at Steventon Village Hall
RURAL NEWS! >>

Notes from Meeting of Reservoir Affected Parishes (RAP) group held on

Wednesday 27 February 2008 at Steventon Village Hall 

Present were  Araminta Morris (Frilford Parish Meeting), Rachel Suton (East Hendred PC) , Tony Day (West Hanney PC), Iain Brown (OCC), Bill Temple (Steventon PC) and Sue Rees (Steventon PC and notes)

1 Introductions, apologies etc.

There were a number of other meetings taking place at the same time, notably at Drayton, East Hanney and VoWH so several members were unable to attend but had asked to be update on the outcomes.

Sue had offered to take on convening meetings, taking notes etc. on a temporary basis to get RAP going again to offer an alternative to the Local Panel convened by Thames Water and pressure groups such as GARD and Fluvius.

2 Update on RAP  

Iain outlined the history of RAP. His ambition had been to get the Parish Councils affected by Thames Water’s proposed reservoir to talk to each other, and share information to try and prevent misinformation being disseminated and divisions being created between the elected representatives for the area. The group had met semi-regularly but had “run out of steam” It was agreed by those present that there is still a role for elected members to fulfil that is different to that being taken on by GARD and the local panel etc. RAP will need to concentrate on establishing actual facts and intentions and raising public awareness.

3 Other groups currently active on the proposed reservoir development

GARD (Group Against Reservoir Development) is a pressure group formed to oppose any reservoir development. It was reported that there are some flaws in some of the figures the group has brought forward and the figures should be treated with care. GARD had recently held a well attended public meeting attended by Ed Vaizey MP, many local residents and a large number of CPRE representatives. They are retaining a number of experts including Chris Binnings a noted hydrologist.  It was agreed that GARD were doing useful things, had access to funding for experts etc. and it would be good to work with them where it didn’t comprise RAP’s non-partisan stance.

CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) have produced a very worthwhile strategy document and could be another useful source of information.

Queen Mother Reservoir at Datchett – a large leak had been reported on at the GARD meeting and Bill was in correspondence with the person involved and is hoping to secure an article or something similar for local parish magazines etc.

Fluvius – no one had had any recent contact with this pressure group

Local Panel – It was reported that 14 people had been selected by Thames Water’s consultants who had run the weekend sessions at Milton Hill last year. They represent themselves only. It was reported that no new information was being presented and not much progress was being made. It was also reported by observers of their last meeting  that a Thames Water employee was an “honorary member” of the group and seemed to be exerting considerable influence on the meetings and outcomes . 

Environment Agency - had sent a useful update including  restating that they “....do not believe Thames Water has provided enough information in its Stage 1 report and in our subsequent discussions, to answer the three following questions 

A How much water do Thames Water need to supply customers in the future ?

B Which measures would best meet or manage future demand for water?

C If a reservoir is needed where might it be located? “

and the date  the EA expects to receive Thames Water’s draft Resources Management Plan is 14 March

Thames Water – had sent an update including that the consultation period on their draft Water resources Management Plan would last approximately 16 weeks and inviting us to respond, but they couldn’t yet confirm the dates for this as they “...are currently waiting on DEFRA in respect of national security matters....”

The next local  panel meeting is on 12 March and RAP representative could attend as observer if joint chairs agreed.

It was noted that RAP must remain impartial but it would be useful to exchange information with all other interested groups.

It was also noted that some present were concerned that the relationship between EA as licensing authority for abstraction. licences etc. and Thames water as a major customer for them may affect their views and actions.

ACTION – agreed Sue should consult with Mike Murray (Vale councillor) about how RAP could most usefully interact with the Local Panel. 

After some discussion it was AGREED that RAP’s next action should be to  organise a public meeting at which anyone could put questions to a panel of representatives of major organisations involved   including Thames Water, Environment Agency, MP’s OFFWAT, DEFRA etc. these representatives should be sufficiently senior in the organisation to give authoritative answers and be accountable for actions agreed taking place. This meeting to take place as soon as practical –mid –late April probably being the earliest it could be held.

ACTIONS 

Tony to check when Hanney War Memorial Hall would be available to hold the meeting in and tell Sue

Iain to ask Charles Dingwall if he would be an independent chair of the panel and tell Sue result

Sue to liaise and get agreement on date of meeting, then approach organisations listed above to confirm they will send a suitable representatives and make all other arrangements for the meeting in consultation with other RAP members.

Next Meeting – to be arranged.