RTS project governance issues?

Below is an email from the Thames Area Customers and Engagement Team in response to a question from Ian S about River Thames Scheme costs and timescales.

---

Our ref: EIR2025/31768
Dear Mr S
I am writing in response to your request for information, received 25 September 2025, regarding IR2025/24208 – Request for Internal Review of EIR2025/14072.
We respond to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).
With all due apologies for the delay, we are writing to confirm that the River Thames Scheme does not produce ‘Project Status Reports’.
In this case, the information you have requested is not held by the Environment Agency, and we are therefore refusing your request on the grounds that there is no information we can provide.
Where a request is for environmental information, the Regulations allow us to refuse to disclose it if the exception at EIR Regulation 12(4)(a) applies. The regulation states that a public authority may refuse to disclose environmental information to the extent that it does not hold that information when an applicant’s request is received.  It is not possible for us to conduct a public interest balancing test because the reason for non-disclosure is that the information is not held.  If you have any questions regarding the status of the project, or further questions, the team would be very happy to answer them.
Please refer to the Open Government Licence which explains the permitted use of this information.
Rights of appeal
If you are not satisfied with our decision, you can contact us within two calendar months to ask for the decision to be reviewed. We will then conduct an internal review of our response to your request and give you our decision in writing within 40 working days.
If you are not satisfied with the outcome of the internal review, you can then make an appeal to the Information Commissioner Office, the statutory regulator for the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please follow this link to the ICO online complaints portal. The address is: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire. SK9 5AF.
Tel: 0303 123 1113 (local rate) or 01625 545 745 (national rate) | Fax: 01625 524 510 Email: icocasework@ico.org.uk | Website: www.ico.org.uk
Yours sincerely,
Customers and Engagement Team – Thames Area
Environment Agency
Please tell us how we did
To help improve your experience as a customer we are currently gathering feedback. If you would like to take part in a short customer satisfaction survey, please click the link below:
Environment Agency FOI Customer Satisfaction Survey

---

Below is the open letter from Ian S to the Thames Area Customers and Engagement Team concerning River Thames Scheme costs and timescales.

---

Dear Mr/Ms Customers and Engagement Team – Thames Area,

Thank you for your response.

I note that your email confirms that, “the River Thames Scheme does not produce ‘Project Status Reports’.”

This explains how £39,877,568.00 of the £101,884,013.53 Public Investment in the RTS is unaccounted for.

But, £13,177,648.21 is attributed to “Project Management” and yet not a single millimetre of the RTS has been constructed.

As a seasoned Project Manager myself, I am struggling to identify a Project Management Methodology which does not require the production of any Status Reports (PSRs, Stage Boundary, Spend against Forecast, Risk Register, Exception Reports, etc, etc). Even Agile methodologies require the production of a Status Report.

The complete absence of any form of Project Status Report explains why the spend is a runaway disaster which has yielded nothing physical thus far.

There is one line item which states:

“Environment Agency/Surrey CC Project management and stakeholder engagement – £7,815,051.67“.

So I asked a £100bn AI, find and identify a Planning and Construction Management Methodology which excludes the mandatory requirement for periodic project status reports.

AI response as follows:

“For a large civil engineering project like a 15-mile flood relief channel, it is highly unlikely that any recognised project management methodology would entirely exclude the need for periodic project status reports. 
Large-scale infrastructure projects in the construction sector typically rely on a traditional Waterfall or a structured, phase-based methodology like PRINCE2. In both cases, formal, consistent reporting is essential for: 

• Stakeholder Communication: Keeping government bodies (like the Environment Agency in the UK), local authorities, and the public informed about progress, budget use, and risk management.
• Governance and Control: Providing the Project Board or steering committees with the necessary information to authorise stages, manage by exception, and ensure continuous business justification.
• Risk and Issue Management: Documenting and tracking significant risks (such as weather events or ground conditions) and the measures taken to mitigate them is crucial in high-risk environments like flood management.
• Legal and Regulatory Compliance: These projects often operate within strict regulatory frameworks that demand extensive documentation and clear records for auditing and accountability.“

But then it found this:

The Environment Agency primarily uses a structured, phase-based approach for its flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) projects, which aligns closely with the
Waterfall methodology, but within a robust governance framework that also incorporates elements of the UK government’s standard project management method, PRINCE2. 
Key aspects of their methodology include:

• HM Treasury’s Five Case Model: All projects must follow this model for developing business cases. This mandates a structured, stage-gate process:
  • Strategic Outline Case: Authorises investigation of options.
  • Outline Business Case: Authorises detailed design and tendering.
  • Full Business Case: Authorises full scheme value and construction.
• Sequential Stages: The process moves through distinct stages of appraisal (planning/design) and construction, which is characteristic of the Waterfall model.
• Formal Contracts: They use the NEC3 suite of contracts for procuring construction works, which formalise the relationships and processes with suppliers and contractors, often in a “design and build” format.
• Integrated Project Teams: The framework encourages early engagement and a “partnering approach” with suppliers and consultants within an integrated project management team, allowing input throughout the project lifecycle.
• Value for Money and Assurance: A strong emphasis is placed on economic viability, cost-benefit analysis, and an independent assurance review process to ensure government funding is used effectively and meets specific policy priorities

Periodic Status Reports

• Daily Construction Reports (DCRs) / Daily Logs: These are fundamental internal reports used by site and team managers. They capture day-to-day activities, labour hours, equipment usage, material deliveries, weather conditions, and any immediate issues or incidents encountered on site.
• Weekly or Bi-weekly Progress Reports: These offer a broader view than daily reports and are used by project managers to update the wider team and mid-level stakeholders. They typically summarise achievements, tasks planned for the next period, resource use, and an update on immediate challenges.
• Monthly Status Reports / Highlight Reports: These are high-level, formal documents intended for senior management and project boards (e.g., the Environment Agency’s Project Board). They provide a strategic overview of the project’s health using key performance indicators (KPIs) (often “Red-Amber-Green” indicators), major accomplishments, budget and schedule status, and significant risks.
• Quarterly Status Reports: These provide a high-level, strategic overview for external stakeholders, government bodies, or board meetings, focusing on long-term progress, major achievements, and overall budget status, often using charts and graphs for clarity.
• End Stage Reports: In a phased methodology like PRINCE2, this report is produced at the end of a specific project stage (e.g., at the end of detailed design or a construction phase). It compares the stage’s performance against the original plan and is used by the Project Board to decide whether to authorise the next stage or re-evaluate the project. 

Specialised and Event-Driven Reports

• Safety and Incident Reports: Produced as needed (e.g., weekly or immediately after an event), these are crucial in construction. They document safety inspections, identified hazards, near-misses, incidents, and corrective actions taken.
• Cost and Variance Reports: These detailed financial reports track actual costs versus budgeted amounts, cash flow projections, impacts of change orders, and provide forecasts for future spending.
• Risk and Issue Reports: These reports document new potential risks or detailed issues, their potential impact, and proposed mitigation strategies. They are often dynamic records updated continuously within a risk or issue register.
• Environmental Compliance Reports: Essential for a project like a flood channel, these reports monitor the project’s impact on the surrounding ecosystem, covering water and air quality, noise levels, and waste management practices to ensure regulatory compliance.
• Exception Reports: These are produced only when a stage or the project is forecast to exceed agreed-upon tolerance levels (e.g., going over budget or schedule by a set percentage). They alert management to the problem and propose actions to resolve the exception. 

In conclusion, I would say that either your claim that “the River Thames Scheme does not produce ‘Project Status Reports’ is entirely incorrect or the Environment Agency, the RTS project in particular, is suffering from a very serious project governance issue.

I rather suspect it is a bit of both however, I am unable to accept that there is nothing which resembles a project status report. I would be grateful if you ‘double check’.

Yours sincerely,

Ian S.

---

EDITOR’S COMMENT: The bottom line?

In my opinion this leaves us with a really interesting question as follows:

There has been no reduction in the probability of flooding downstream of Windsor since Thames dredging was abandoned when the Environment Agency was created in the mid 1990s. Looking at the 40* year history of the MWEFAS, (Jubilee River), LTFRMS, RTS and DHEFIM projects, the current position and the enormous cost in time and public money – have we really learned nothing?  Who actually knows what’s going on here –  and who is accountable?

* MWEFAS was conceived in the mid-1980s and considered at the Planning Inquiry in 1992.

---