All of us want to find greener, more sustainable energy sources and Hydros are one example. They work by converting the movement of water into electricity and one is under consideration for installation at the weir at Teddington. However, the design currently being debated is not fit for purpose. Please help us to: 

Say NO to the current Teddington and Ham Hydro Group proposal so that we can…
Say YES to a better designed Hydro at Teddington and Ham

 Which will have the clear support of the thriving local community of homes and businesses and at the same time will minimise noise pollution on adjacent homes and businesses, lower flood risk and leave intact the distinctive heritage visual appearance of this peaceful part of Thames enjoyed by thousands of visitors each year.
 

Why do we need a better design?

The design currently under debate is not fit for purpose and there are far better options for this tidal site in an urban area.  There is no other Hydro like the one currently being proposed in use in an urban and tidal area ANYWHERE. This is not because it is new, cutting-edge technology - quite the opposite. This design has been superseded by newer and smaller alternatives where both noise pollution and increased flood risk can be more effectively mitigated.  These MUST be considered in order to prevent irreversible harm to our community. Unless we show the council that large number of the community are against this before the Planning meeting on the 16th September, we will be too late.   

Why is this petition important?

We need to influence the Environmental Agency, Planners and the Councillors to do the right thing and request a design that is beneficial rather than push through something that is extremely damaging to the wellbeing of our local community.  There are many unanswered issues: health and safety, flooding risk, damage to a heritage site but the Council are using noise as a factor to make the decision and are ignoring feedback from the community on all factors. 

Contrary to what has been reported in the media, there is NO local community value from the Hydro currently under consideration, just increased risk, nuisance and inconvenience and potentially many years of legal proceedings for local residents and businesses. The noise report and experience of other Hydros such as Romney show that with this design,  the noise is unpredictable so should not be installed in a densely populated area. 

 Why is it important now?

A new noise report has been produced recommending that Councillors finally give approval even though the noise conditions will not be met without mitigation measures (coverings for the gear box and screws.) There is no testing or reliable data to prove these measures will reduce the noise. The level of uncertainty given by the noise experts is too high and there are errors in comparing data from the smaller Romney Weir. The intermittent nature of the noise from changes in turbine speed and tides and the mechanical tonal difference (natural running water over the weir compared to a mechanical noise) is insufficient to ensure the noise can be kept to a levels set by the Council to protect local residents from adverse effects on health and well-being.

 Even more worrying, although the impact on eels and wildlife has been addressed,  the massive human health and safety problem is being overlooked by the planners. The Hydro will be on the busiest part of the Thames for non-powered vehicles and the trash screen attached to the Hydro has been described as a ‘death trap because people including children could get sucked under the trash screen and into the turbines because of the way the river flows’. 

Know the facts

The 5 things you need to know about the currently proposed Hydro:

This is NOT a community scheme
There is no confirmation that a single watt will be consumed locally – the electricity goes into the National Grid and has no beneficial impact whatsoever on energy prices for our local community.

 
It does NOT make economic sense
The proposed Hydro is more of an advert for renewable energy rather than a valid means of contributing to renewable energy production. The electricity output is recognised as absolutely minimal – the equivalent of lighting for several hundred homes through the National Grid. Furthermore, the current published economic projections make no provision for replacing the equipment at the end of its useful life which is estimated to be 40-50 years…in effect we are bequeathing a rusting pile to the future residents of our area.

 
It has NOT taken proper account of the flood risk
Rather unbelievably; the flood risk for the currently proposed design has been calculated using out-of-date data from 2010. No account has been taken of the stress placed on the Thames Barrier, which over the winter of 2013/14 was closed far more times (48) than in any previous year (the nearest being 2003, when it was closed 19 times). And no account has been taken of any upstream River developments for future flood prevention which will impact our stretch of the Thames.

 
It has NOT taken noise pollution properly into consideration
There is disagreement between the technical experts on what the ultimate impact will be but all agree there will be a significant amount of noise, which will mean local residents and businesses suffering 24/7. What is more, once the Hydro is approved, there is no official mechanism for halting its operation if the noise is found to exceed the acceptable limit.  Initial reports on the current design already state that there will be some days of the year when the noise limits will definitely not be met and there is no evidence the noise can be mitigated to achieve the condition limit.

 
It does NOT have the support of the local community
The people living nearest the scheme are 8 to 1 against this particular design. Current support is from people who do not live in the geographical vicinity and who would not have their homes and lives seriously impacted by noise and potential flooding.
Important local businesses and facilities, such as The Lensbury Club, where noise pollution and flooding would have a disastrous impact and would undoubtedly lead to job losses, are vehemently against the current design.
 

 An alternative design would mitigate most, if not all of these considerations. Please help to ensure the right decision is taken for OUR community.