The headline figures
The registered owners — what the company register says
Every entity below is traceable at Companies House, and every link in the chain is a “person with significant control” registration of 75% or more of shares and voting rights. This is the ownership of record — and, as the next section explains, it is no longer the whole story.
The chain of control, as registered
Source: Companies House persons-with-significant-control registers for each company, read 31 August 2026. All PSC notifications date from 6 April 2016, when the register began.
Above the chain sits a consortium of investment and pension funds whose reported shareholdings in the Kemble parent have included the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (~32%), the Universities Superannuation Scheme (~20%), Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, British Columbia Investment Management, Hermes, China Investment Corporation, Queensland Investment Corporation, Aquila and the Dutch pension fund PFZW. Kemble Water Holdings itself has a registered statement that no single registrable person controls it — no one investor crosses the 25% control threshold with the register.
These are reported holdings in the parent, stated here for the record. Under the restructuring proposal described below, the consortium’s own statement is that existing shareholders “lose their investment entirely”.
Who actually controls it — a contested question, honestly stated
In 2026 the register and reality have come apart. The facts below are dated deliberately: this section will change, and a reader should know exactly when each statement was true.
- The debt exceeds the equity’s worth. A creditor group trading as London & Valley Water — around 100 financial institutions holding more than £17bn of senior debt — has proposed a rescue in which it injects £10bn of new capital, writes off £9.6bn of debt, and takes ownership; the registered shareholders lose everything. (Their statement, 21 July 2026.)
- Government has already rejected one version. In June 2026 the then Environment Secretary declined the earlier proposal as not doing enough for consumers and the environment. The July version adds a ministerial “golden share”, an independent monitor with boardroom access, local-authority representation in a new supervisory structure, a ten-year dividend bar and an expanded social tariff. (As reported and per the consortium’s statement; no decision had been announced when this page was last verified.)
- Special administration remains the alternative. If no restructuring is approved, the government can apply to place the company into a Special Administration Regime. As at 31 August 2026 that has not happened, and this page does not predict it.
- The regulator holds its own levers. Ofwat’s £122.7m penalty package (May 2025) is being paid under an agreed plan, and licence conditions constrain dividends and require board independence. Regulatory control operates whoever owns the equity.
The practical point for this reach: whoever ends up owning Thames Water inherits the TDRA application, the Mogden assets and the statutory obligations unchanged. The scheme’s fate does not turn on the ownership fight — it turns on the planning process in the next section.
The board of the licensed company
Directors of Thames Water Utilities Limited as filed at Companies House, read 31 August 2026. Nine of thirteen current officers were appointed in 2023–2025, through the period of financial distress — the register records 147 resignations across the company’s history. Names are listed in their public, statutory capacity; nothing here implies anything about any individual beyond the fact of their appointment.
| Name | Role | Appointed |
|---|---|---|
| Adrian Montague | Director (chair) | 10 Jul 2023 |
| Christopher Weston | Director (chief executive) | 8 Jan 2024 |
| Steven Buck | Director | 7 Apr 2025 |
| Adam Banks | Director | 28 Mar 2025 |
| Aidan de Brunner | Director | 1 Sep 2024 |
| Julian Gething | Director | 22 Jan 2025 |
| Nirmal Kotecha | Director | 28 Mar 2025 |
| Nicholas Land | Director | 6 Feb 2017 |
| Catherine Lynn | Director | 28 Nov 2018 |
| Andrew McNaughton | Director | 28 Mar 2025 |
| Ian Pearson | Director | 1 Sep 2014 |
| Neil Robson | Director | 2 Oct 2024 |
| Andrew Fraiser | Company secretary | 27 Mar 2024 |
What they plan for this reach — and how the scheme has already changed
The Teddington Direct River Abstraction scheme would take water from the tidal Thames just below the weir and replace it with treated effluent from a new tertiary treatment plant at Mogden. It reached this point through the statutory water-resources planning route — the regional plan and the company’s Water Resources Management Plan — and was directed into the nationally-significant regime by a section 35 Direction in December 2023.
- Statutory consultation, 2025 — the main public consultation on the scheme design.
- Supplementary consultation, 21 May – 18 June 2026 — on design changes near Burnell Avenue and Beaufort Road.
- Changes made (per Thames Water): above-ground works at Ham Playing Fields removed; the outfall position revised; the tertiary treatment plant relocated within the Mogden works. Anyone objecting in 2027 needs to address the scheme as it now is, not as first consulted.
- DCO application: expected early 2027, delayed from 2026 “to allow for further feedback” (Thames Water project page, read 31 August 2026).
Who decides — and what each actor can actually do
TDRA is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (Planning Inspectorate reference WA010006). That puts it under the Planning Act 2008: an appointed Examining Authority examines, and the Secretary of State decides. There is no parliamentary vote, and no local vote.
| Actor | What they can actually do |
|---|---|
| Secretary of State | Takes the decision on the Examining Authority’s recommendation. The one office that can refuse consent |
| Examining Authority (Planning Inspectorate) | Runs the examination, questions the applicant, recommends. Cannot decide |
| Interested Parties — anyone who registers in the window | Submit evidence, attend hearings, be heard. The public’s only formal route in |
| Richmond & Kingston councils | Statutory consultees; a Local Impact Report carries weight in the examination. No veto |
| Environment Agency | Statutory consultee, and separately the abstraction licensing authority |
| Ofwat | Regulates funding and the WRMP route that produced the scheme. No role in the planning consent |
| MPs | No vote on the DCO. Influence is political: debates, questions, pressure on the Secretary of State |
| Petitions | No legal effect on the decision. Can trigger a parliamentary debate; the debate does not bind it |
| The courts | Judicial review of legality and process only, not planning merits — within 6 weeks of the decision |
The window that matters
After the application is accepted, the Planning Inspectorate opens a Relevant Representation window — the period in which any person, group or council registers as an Interested Party. Registration is what confers the right to submit evidence and be heard in the examination. On the current timetable that window is likely to fall in 2027; it lasts a matter of weeks and closes on a fixed date published on the project page. Evidence that is not registered through that window has no formal route into the examination, however good it is. This page will carry the exact dates when they are published; the authoritative source is the Planning Inspectorate project page for WA010006.
How to read this
Caveats a regulator would press — stated up front
- Ownership facts here decay fast. Every statement is dated, and the page carries a “last verified” date. If the restructuring completes or special administration begins, the control section is out of date from that day and will be revised.
- Naming a director states a public fact, nothing more. Appointments are from the statutory register. Nothing on this page suggests any named individual has acted improperly.
- A rejected proposal is a decision about a proposal. It is not a finding against the company or its creditors, and this page does not treat it as one.
- Foreign and state-linked investors are reported plainly. Their presence on the register is a fact; no inference is invited beyond it.
- “Nationalisation is likely” is commentary, and it is attributed or omitted here. As at the last-verified date, no special administration order existed.
- The scheme description is the applicant’s. What TDRA would do is stated from Thames Water’s own project material; this programme’s assessment of its effects belongs on the evidence pages, not here.
Sources & provenance
- Companies House — PSC and officer registers for companies 02366661, 06195202, 02366623, 05819317, 05957999 and 05819262, read 31 August 2026. RAW-PULL
- Planning Inspectorate — project WA010006 and the section 35 Direction (December 2023). PUBLISHED
- Thames Water SRO project pages — scheme description, consultation dates, design changes, and the early-2027 application date, read 31 August 2026. PUBLISHED
- London & Valley Water statement, 21 July 2026 — the creditor group’s own account of its proposal. PUBLISHED
- Ofwat — penalty package and licence conditions. PUBLISHED
- Press reporting is used only to date events, never to establish ownership or control. PUBLISHED