Political figures back calls for Thames Water to remove 'dangerous' redundant pipe

Political figures have joined calls for Thames Water to ‘do the right thing’ and remove a ‘dangerous’ redundant sewer pipe over the Maidenhead waterway.

The company has long faced calls from the Friends of Maidenhead Waterways (FoMW) to remove the structure, which also features ‘dangerous’ pipe hangers (large steel brackets).

Richard Davenport, chairman of FoMW said Thames Water has finally reconfirmed its original conclusion in 2016 that the pipe is redundant, and has said it could be sealed and removed to boost safety for waterway users.

However, Richard said the company has said the estimated cost of removing the ‘heavily rusted’ 9m pipe would be around £1.1million and has pushed the responsibility of footing this bill onto FoMW and RBWM.

This has sparked outrage among the volunteer-run charity and the council, who both state that neither is in a position to fund the removal of the pipe and are calling for Thames Water to take responsibility in removing its own asset.

Maidenhead MP Josh Reynolds and FoMW patron Baroness Theresa May have also joined the calls and have written letters to Thames Water bosses to remove the asset, which is ‘believed to be well over 50 years old’, at no cost to the volunteers or council.

Mr Davenport said: “Since the completion of the York Stream arm of the waterway in February 2020, through passage and use of the channel by canoes and other craft has been severely restricted by the dangerously low pipe.”

In his letter, Mr Reynolds said: “This pipe, which is no longer in use, hangs low over the stream and poses a clear and ongoing health and safety risk, with its presence obstructing essential maintenance work along this important local waterway.”

He added that the estimated costs ‘also places an impossible burden on either a financially constrained local authority or a dedicated group of volunteers’.

“I am urging you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider your position and commit to removing this redundant pipe without delay or cost to local residents and volunteers,” the letter added.

In her letter, Baroness May echoed these calls and said: “Can I please encourage Thames Water to take responsibility for removing its own redundant asset.

“This should not fall to the council taxpayers of the Royal Borough.”

Mr Reynolds told the Advertiser: “It’s just ridiculous. The pipe doesn’t need to be there, its not doing anything, it’s dangerous, it’s obstructing the stream – just get rid of it.

“I would have thought that out of a goodwill gesture from Thames Water, they would want to get rid of this pipe for the community.”

Mrs May added: “Unfortunately, the redundant sewer pipe spanning the York Stream presents a clear safety hazard.

“It is entirely appropriate that Thames Water as the responsible authority should bear the cost of removing its own disused infrastructure, rather than burdening local council taxpayers."

Royal Borough councillor Gurch Singh (Lib Dem, St Mary’s), said: “The idea that the council or a group of local volunteers should cough up over a million pounds to clean up their mess is frankly insulting.

“The letters from Josh Reynolds MP and Baroness May couldn’t be clearer Thames Water needs to step up, take ownership, and do the right thing.

“If they keep dodging it, I’ll keep pushing, because people won’t forget who left a hazard hanging over their heads.”

Mr Davenport added: “It is very frustrating for residents, waterway users and RBWM that this issue was not resolved during the main channel restoration works.

“We are appealing to Thames Water directors to use this opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to the local community and to working with RBWM by stepping up to take ownership of the project and speedily resolving this long running issue.”

A Thames Water spokesperson said: “We have a visible pipe crossing programme in place, guided by asset health and public safety risk.

“This risk-based approach ensures we prioritise the highest risk assets first. We will continue to inspect our assets, so we can review and update our plans as required.”