Lots of focus at last night's Council meeting on the proposal from Thames Water for a Super Sewer.
Local resident Alexandra Kennough put down the following public question:
“What is Council the doing in the short- and long-term to oppose the proposed Thames Water super sewer site in south Fulham, which will lead to (1) a significant degradation in local air quality for all residents and school children in south Fulham, not only from the site and but also from increased traffic congestion related to the site—for a decade, (2) a decline in existing residential and commercial property values, as well as the opportunity cost of future residential and commercial development on the proposed site, and (3) the permanent loss of existing quality of life in south Fulham punctuated by the permanent scar of the venting column, more commonly known as the stink pipe?”
The Council leader make very clear the priority being given to opposing the plans - including holding meetings with Ministers.
Later the following motion was passed:
SPECIAL MOTION NO. 3 – SUPER SEWER
Standing in the names of:
(i) Councillor Steve Hamilton
(ii) Councillor Ali de Lisle
“This Council:
1. Notes the current proposals by Thames Water to use a site at Carnwath Road as the main construction access for the Thames Tideway Tunnel/Super Sewer;
2. Notes the disastrous effects on residents and homes in South Fulham this will have over the next 20 years;
3. Reaffirms its opposition to the Super Sewer passed at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 17 September 2008;
4. Supports residents in Sands End in their campaign against the Super Sewer;
5. Calls on Thames Water immediately to withdraw proposals to use the Carnwath Road site as access to the Super Sewer.”
The Labour councillors refused to back this motion. Instead they proposed an amendment saying that Thames Water had never offered a serious threat to our borough with their earlier proposals for a site. Yet in a letter from Thames Water to the Council on June 26 2008 they said the Super Sewer would run from Hammersmith and so that is where the main crater would be required. At a Thames Water briefing for councillors on October 20 2008 they said they had "rescinded" the letter and no sites had been ruled in or out. But to have trusted Thames Water would have been naive.
Given what limited information we had of their criteria - large open space the size of two or three football pitches, within 500 metres of the river, served by major roads and amenities - our officers advised the main threat would be to Ravenscourt Park or Furnival Gardens. So we mounted a vigorous campaign. We were right to alert residents and they responded strongly. Thames Water backed off in a victory for People Power.
But now the threat has returned this time with Carnwath Road being targeted. Again Labour are failing to show clear opposition to Thames Water - instead they often serve as propagandists for Thames Water in attacking the Council and repeating the misleading claims for the Super Sewer.
Cllr Cowan also displayed his ignorance by claiming Richmond-upon-Thames Council supported the Super Sewer. Had Cllr Cowan troubled to read The Case against the Thames Tunnel, produced by H&F Council, he would have seen this comment from Lord True, Leader of the London Borough of Richmond:
“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.”
Comments