Lib Dems challenge Richmond’s support for ‘Thames Tunnel Commission’

• [Sep 30]: LIBERAL Democrat councillors Martin Elengorn and Geoff Acton have called-in for review by the Environment Scrutiny Committee the Cabinet's decision of the 15th September to give retrospective authority to funding the so-called Thames Tunnel Commission.

The reasons given for call-in are:

"(1) No proper justification is given for departing from the Council's view as expressed in the letter of 18 January 2011 (attached) to Thames Water. (2) The Cabinet paper and attachments provide insufficient information about the Commission, its membership, terms of reference, method of operation and reporting lines and (given its existence since July) work so far."

Cllr Martin Elengorn, Liberal Democrat environment spokesperson, said: "Lord True, the Leader of Richmond Council committed us to this so-called Commission over 2 months ago with the words: 'The case for the Thames Tunnel has not been properly made. It is time for Thames Water to rethink and deliver a scheme that secures greater value for money and less disruption to Londoners. With the country still plunging into debt at £16 million an hour, inflation too high and utility bills constantly growing, this is one prestige project that could be shelved until better days.'

"Only now is he seeking retrospective authority for his action. His words contradict the Council's official view given in January, which said: 'As a Council we agree there is a need for an improved sewage system within London and understand the principle of the Thames Tunnel and the potential benefits that should be derived. We do want to see the Thames cleaned up and the substantial reduction in the sewage discharges into the river.' No proper justification has been given for this change of heart.

"This is a completely different matter from the local concerns as to where the works for the Tunnel should take place. However distinguished the panel, hurriedly assembled by Hammersmith Council, may be, there is no evidence that they are sufficiently resourced to review the huge amount of work that Thames Water have carried out before making their proposal and we want to be convinced that this is anything more than a PR exercise and a distraction from the urgent work of cleaning up the Thames."

--------------------------------------------------

• The Council's letter to Thames Water, January 2011 [emphasis added]:

Phil Stride

Head of London Tideway Tunnels

Thames Water Utilities Ltd

37 North Wharf Road

W2 1AF

18 January 201

Dear Mr Stride

Proposed Thames Tunnel public consultation (Phase 1)

I refer to your letter of 6 October introducing the consultation on the Thames Tunnel and the subsequent extension of the consultation period after it was acknowledged that some of the notifications to residents had not been received. On behalf of the Cabinet Members I would like to thank you and your colleague for attending meetings with us as well as public meetings in the area. As a Council we agree there is a need for an improved sewage system within London and understand the principle of the Thames Tunnel and the potential benefits that should be derived. We do want to see the Thames cleaned up and the substantial reduction in the sewage discharges into the river.

The concern we do have about the project is centred around the location of the main drive site at Barn Elms and the consequences if this were to proceed as set out in the proposal. We understand that to deal with the CSO at the Beverly Brook there needs to be some construction activity. Making this a main drive site however creates a much greater impact on the community. We have to challenge the jump in the logic from a construction site to main drive site. We do not believe that the case is properly made.

We understand that the site at Tideway Walk is a brownfield site that is planned to be developed as part of the Nine Elms development. This site provides better access to the river, has no impact to residents and does not remove recreation access. The drive from Barnes to Tideway Walk we believe should be reversed and thus reduce the impact at Barnes.

Likewise the development around the Hammersmith pumping station could be deferred by agreement to enable the construction works to facilitate a tunnel drive from Hammersmith to Barnes. We believe these opportunities need to be explored more fully rather than just assuming that because planning consent has been granted that the site will be unavailable. We know the situation will present problems but we do know that developers often do not start when they say they will.

The Barn Elms site will, we acknowledge, be required for some construction but we need to be assured that scale is appropriate and we will wish to see that all other options have been properly pursued. Any construction activity must respect both proximity to neighbouring residents and the recreational benefit of the Barn Elms facilities. Our expectation is that the river will be used for the transportation of all construction materials and the site should only occupy the minimum footprint.

Given the constrained nature of the local road network we do have serious concerns on the traffic impact of any road movement and would thus be looking to ensure that only essential movements are made on the road network and that only a minimal office provision is set up.

To ensure we can be satisfied the Council will wish to be provided with clarity about the size, position and screening of the proposed construction area, more details of the proposed construction activities including timing, vehicle movements, removal of spoil, hours of work nature of work etc. This would help the Council form a view on how to access the proposed site, impacts on the highway and existing cycle and pedestrian routes. A Transport Assessment will be required. Further information is also required about how and where present site users would be moved both off and back on to the site and the size, position and appearance of the access shaft and how this would be accessed after consultation is completed.

The Council would also like to be assured that mitigation measures during construction are considered at the early stages and that consideration is given to compensatory public benefits in the form of improvements to the immediate area, the nearby sporting facilities and to the towpath. As adjoining landowner the Council's Legal Department will need to have early discussions with Thames Water to consider necessary agreements for access.

Yours sincerely

Jon Freer

Assistant Director Environment

cc: Clare Gibbons, Thames Water

• London super sewer could be replaced by "cheaper, shorter" alternative [RTT Nov 02]

• River Crane 'destroyed' by sewage spill [RTT Nov 01]