You might remember Cllr Paul Bristow recently wrote to all other London Councils, trying to enlist their support in H&F's campaign against the Tideway Tunnel - a sewer project designed to prevent millions of litres of sewage being pumped into the Thames.Thames Water have hit back with their own letter,here , which has also been sent to the same Councils. Although H&F have managed apparently to gain the support of neighbouring Kensington & Chelsea, Westminster Council have decided that they do not support H&F's campaign.
That may explain the ratcheting up of their campaign, which now includes warning that people may actually lose their homes if the sewer is built - which Thames categorically deny.
This one is clearly going to rumble on and on...
Dear Chris
ReplyDeleteWe seem to be going around in circles on the issue of whether or not houses would be demolished.
I did draw the attention of your readers to section 2.2.19 of Thames Water's publication: 'Site Selection Methodology: Shaft Sites' to clarify the issue. I was hoping that you would publish my contribution in full as you have published comments in full from Thames Water.
I am now asking you to publish this comment in full on the front page of your blog, not as an obscure comment on your one sided article, and draw the attention of your readers to item 2.2.19 copied below; in particular its last sentence. Let them make up their own mind whether or not housing is to be included in the sites to be acquired for constructing the tunnel.
As a professional person I have no political point to make and feel strongly that Defra's decision to go ahead with the present destructive scheme, the multi-billion cost of which will not be known until the end, needs resisting. The £2.2 billion cost branded about was a 2004 £1.7 billion estimate without a scheme design. Even at that cost modelling showed that 20% of low income families will not be able to afford water bills by 2012.
Next time time you play on peoples emotions and highlight the millions of cubic meters of sewage flowing into the river I want you also to highlight that to resolve the problem via the present scheme will render many poorer families, struggling for the basic necessities, even more destitute.
There is a cheaper and far more appropriate alternative which does not require acquisition of sites and deals with aesthetic pollution and heath issues in the upper reaches of the river used by rowers and canoeists.
The proposal has yet to be agreed by Ofwat, the consumer champion, because of the horrendous costs involved. I will continue to fight the present scheme and feel that the rest of the Borough residents should support the Council, as the Consumer Council for Water is and as other organisations are who are familiar with the project.
Raj Bhatia
Chairman, Stamford Brook Residents Association
"Excluded Areas
2.2.19 The site search area is a large and all inclusive area and in order to make sure the search is
realistic, two types of areas have been excluded, after consideration of core London Plan policies:
• London’s four World Heritage Sites: 1) Westminster Palace; 2) Westminster Abbey and
Saint Margaret’s Church; 3) Tower of London; and 4) Maritime Greenwich. World Heritage
Sites are places of international importance for the conservation of mankind’s cultural and
natural heritage and are designated by the World Heritage Convention established in 1972
by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (Policy
4B.13 - World Heritage Sites).
• Existing housing within concentrated residential areas: on the basis of: London Plan
Policies 3A.15 - Loss of housing and affordable housing and 3A.16 - Loss of hostels, staff
accommodation and shared accommodation. These policies are designed to protect
existing residential stock unless there is a planned replacement. In addition, these London
Plan policies are further supported in all Unitary Development Plans (UDPs) and emerging
Core Strategies across London Local authorities. The aim across London is to prevent the
loss of existing housing stock unless replaced as part of the proposed development. As
exceptions to this general rule: (a) derelict or vacant housing sites will be identified and (b)
if particular sites are put forward by local authority stakeholders as being potentially
suitable, they will be considered. Should it be impossible to identify potential sites without
including areas of housing – which is thought unlikely – the back-checking exercise would
allow Thames Water to return to this point and reconsider whether there are in fact
potential sites within this category of land use."
Raj
ReplyDeleteI have never censored, deleted or otherwise manipulated ANY comment on this blog.
You have also, twice, refused to answer the simple question I have put to you publicly on this blog. So let's try a third time.
Thames Water have said categorically that no homes are at risk. Are they in your view being untruthful?
And as for "playing on peoples emotions", how about publicly warning people will be made homeless when you have not a shred of direct evidence?
Chris
"There is a cheaper and far more appropriate alternative which does not require acquisition of sites and deals with aesthetic pollution and heath issues in the upper reaches of the river used by rowers and canoeists."
ReplyDeleteWhat is this solution please? Have I missed something here in the literature? I thought I had read almost everything published on this subject but apparently not. Please explain the magic bullet I am sure TW would be delighted to learn of it, it would save them a lot of money.
By the way, there is a line in 2.2.19 which you would appear to be ignoring. It says and I quote "Should it be impossible to identify potential sites without including areas of housing – which is thought unlikely – the back-checking exercise would allow Thames Water to return to this point and reconsider whether there are in fact potential sites within this category of land use."
"Which is thought unlikely". TW are still in the process of compiling their list of possible sites, which will themselves be subject to planning apps and therefore open to objections, and have by way of their publications so far made it abundantly clear they are working to find suitable sites and not unsuitable ones. In my view the time for strong objections is when TW actually put forward a proposal to place a site where houses stand, not raise theoretical and scaremongering concerns about that which has not come to pass.
Chris
ReplyDeleteDo not manipulate me!
I am not interested in what TW have written to you or on your blog. I have drawn your attention to what their official document states.
If you want to learn about the project, come and see me.
Raj
Dear Paul
ReplyDeletePlease find link to 'Ofwat Independent Report in the following
http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/6070.htm
You may also wish to read the rest of TTSS output to familiarise yourself with the project.
Regards
Raj
Raj - don't accuse me of manipulating you, I'm simply asking you to answer a question which you, for whatever reason, wish to avoid answering.
ReplyDeletePlease don't patronise me by asking me to "come and see you to know more about this project" - you are not an expert on it, but you clearly have strong feelings about it as do many others. Should the Mayor of London, the Government and other Local Councils also come and see you to know more about it because they take a different view from you, so that you can educate them otherwise?
And finally you accuse me of writing a 'one sided article' - what then does appearing in a Council propaganda video which publicly warns people of homelessness despite not having a shred of evidence to support that, thus causing public anxiety with no good reason, count as?
[...] Chronicle story also covers this report on H&F’s attempt to whip up support among fellow Councils against the project. Sadly for [...]
ReplyDeleteJust to give you another perspective, and from someone that uses the river on a regular basis as a keen angler... I am sick and tired of having the aquatic environment of our river compromised by millions of tonnes of human waste on an annual basis.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I fully understand people's fears of rising costs, the real possibilty of 'Water Poverty', I personally will no longer tolerate 'my' river being used as an open sewer!
Thames Water need to comply with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, the Water Framework Directive. The tunnel is the only viable option environmentally, just because you cannot see the damage it doeas on an annual basis, that doesn't mean it is not a reality! As to who will pay for all this, Thames Water - under the current financing regime - are unequivocally placing the onus upon the customer...
You have till Friday to take part in the consultation process, make sure that you emphasise the need for Thames Water to share the financial burden.
http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/sign-in.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fquestionnaire1.aspx
Richard Anthony Crimp
Thames Anglers' Conservancy