Fulham cannot handle sewer drive shaft

Skip Navigation

Fulham cannot handle sewer drive shaft

Thursday December 8, 2011


The audience at the Super Sewer Summit

The residential area around Fulham riverside is not suitable for the main super sewer drive shaft, and school children and vulnerable residents should not be put at risk to boost profits for Australian bankers.

That is the message Thames Water heard loud and clear at a meeting last night (December 7) as hundreds of residents packed into a south Fulham school to say ‘NO’ to the super sewer.

More than 500 hundred people flocked to Hurlingham & Chelsea School to challenge Thames Water’s controversial proposal to dump the giant super sewer drive shaft on residents’ doorsteps in Carnwath Road, Fulham.

The meeting started badly for Thames Water officials as residents lined up to say that the 29,000 lorries needed at the site will endanger pedestrians and the thousands of children who attend schools in the area.

Five schools – Langford Primary, New Kings Primary, Sullivan Primary, Hurlingham and Chelsea and Lady Margaret – are all within a mile of the planned site.

Concerned parents issued a stark warning after Thames Water confirmed that at least 33 lorries would rumble through Fulham’s congested streets, spewing harmful pollution into the air, for at least six years.

Parent Tara Griffin, of Friston Street, said: “The 4,500 schoolchildren whose health will be affected by this proposal cannot fill out a questionnaire or come to a meeting like this. They depend on us to ask on their behalf. So how do you propose to protect us and particularly them from your pollution and your lorries?”

It was the first time the community has been able to grill Thames Water bosses after they announced Carnwath Road as their preferred location for their £4.1billion concrete tunnel under the river.

Carnwath Road resident Peter Merrens said: “I will live around 30 yards from the site. I will be looking at it for six years and I expect that I will not be able to sleep for a good few years.”

Richard Tremlett, 77, of Tyrawley Rd, said: “The whole idea of the super sewer sounds ridiculous but to put the main shaft in Fulham is absolutely appalling.”

Residents probed Thames Water on accusations that the water company’s true motives for pushing through the massive tunnel project is more about boosting profits than cleaning up the river. The £4.1billion price tag for the Thames Tunnel will be paid for by Thames Water bill payers. Average bills for 14million customers will go up by an extra £80 a year for life – driving many people on fixed incomes into water poverty. Thames Water is owned by Australian bank Macquarie and water industry finance experts have said the value of Thames Water as a company could rise by 40% if the super sewer, or Thames Tunnel as it is also known, goes ahead.

Other concerns raised at the meeting include:

  • The 50ft ventilation tower for noxious fumes will permanently scar the riverfront.
  • Light, noise and vibration pollution associated with the major construction site will last for a minimum of 24 hours a day, seven days a week for at least six years – the length of a child’s primary education.
  • Many of the 15,000 homes and 2,000 businesses located within 2,000 yards of the proposed site will suffer from dampened property values.
  • The Thames Tunnel will not solve a single basement flooding problem.
  • Carnwath Road became the preferred site on the day phase two of the public consultation process began, giving local people just 14 weeks to respond compared to other sites, where people have had more than 14 months to galvanize support.

Members of the crowd at the two-and-a-half hour meeting shouted ‘outrageous’ and ‘shame on you’ as Thames Water tried to defend their plans while council Leader, Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh, vowed to continue to fight Thames Water.

Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh, H&F council leader, said: “This will cause maximum disruption to the area and cause misery to the lives of people living in Fulham, and we will fight it all the way. When we first highlighted the problems with the super sewer, all those years ago, we were accused of scaremongering but now Fulham faces a clear and present danger to its precious riverside. And you can be assured that the council will continue to defend Fulham's riverside and Carnwath Road to the bitter end as well as continue to oppose the current scheme. However, the council will not lead an attack on Barnes and Barn Elms - no matter how clever!

"We have just weeks to reverse Thames Water’s current proposals and we will be straining every sinew to persuade them there are less disruptive options.

“Fulham is uniting to say no to these plans. The super sewer is a sledge hammer to crack a nut and we should trust the respected world experts who have repeatedly come forward to say there are cheaper, greener and less disruptive ways to improve water quality in the Thames.”

Phil Stride, head of the Thames Tunnel project, said: “In terms of keeping children safe we would work to minimise the amount of lorry movements and, obviously, we would not want to have those lorry movements when the children are going into, or coming out of, school.”

South Fulham resident, Alex Kennaugh, says: “We know that there are cheaper and greener ways to clean up the river but, if Thames Water is determined to push ahead with its 19th century tunnel solution, the main drive shaft needs to go in the least disruptive place possible. If there is a choice between uninhabited sites and a thriving residential community, then Thames Water must pick the area that harms the fewest people.”

The campaigners have also worked up two YouTube videos showing why the residential area is totally unacceptable for the major sewer works:

Thames Water's public consultation ends on February 10, 2012. To have your say visit www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk (opens new window).

For more click on www.lbhf.gov.uk/supersewer.

Sign the petition at www.lbhf.gov.uk/sewerpetition.


A question is raised at the Super Sewer Summit

Top of page

» Send us your comments now

The dilemma lies with both the definition of "brownfield" sites and their location in the environment. The guidelines should be followed only where the implications of the site in the community are fully taken into consideration. If this law requires changing then appropriate steps need to be taken by our lawmakers
From Belinda Mariotti on 12/12/2011 at 19:05
I was at the meeting. Stephen Greenhalgh towered over the slight Phil Stride and Richard Aylard. He was itching to snatch the microphone from them as they tried to answer the questions put to them. Of course I am sorry for the residents next to the proposed site. But the method for selecting sites for drilling which is being followed by Thames Water is the correct and legal procedure. This is the point which the two directors were trying to make. If the procedure comes up with the "wrong" answers, that is not the fault of the messengers Phil Stride and Richard Aylard. In addition the wholesale rebuilding of the central and northern parts of Hammersmith up to Old Oak will add 25,000 residential units to the borough over the next 15-20 years. Where is the sewage supposed to go??
From Una Hodgkins on 10/12/2011 at 20:48

Comments

Your comments

Name:*
Display name:*
E-mail:*
Comment:*
 
characters
 
Enter the code shown above:*

                      I accept the terms and conditions of posting to this site*
 

* denotes mandatory field