Fulham says NO to super sewer

Skip Navigation

Fulham says NO to super-sewer

Thursday April 7, 2011


L-R: Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh (Leader H&F Council), Kit Malthouse (London Assembly Member), Raj Bhatia (H&F resident) and Greg Hands (local MP)

Thames Water is asking residents in south Fulham what they think of the plans to use a densely packed residential area for their main super-sewer construction compound.

And the answer came back loud and clear last night.

Fulham says NO to the super sewer!

350 residents packed into Hurlingham and Chelsea School yesterday evening (April 6) to hear how Thames Water want to use land next to Carnwath Road as a 24 hour-a-day 7 day-a-week construction compound for seven years.

Thousands of new homes and jobs are under threat as Thames Water’s £3.6 billion storage tank under the river needs a compound the size of four football pitches to get drilling equipment into the ground and to excavate spoil from the tunnel.

Residents bombarded Thames Water’s Phil Stride with a series of issues and questions including:

  • The stench that will be created from gases caused by raw sewage in a densely populated residential area next to five local schools
  • The clogging up of tightly congested residential streets with lorries
  • The £3.6billion cost of the scheme, which has more than doubled since 2002
  • The disruption to local homes caused by dusty construction work
  • The loss of new homes and jobs on the riverside
  • The lack of consultation on this site and surprise u-turn
  • Water-rates spiralling by at least £65 per year to pay for the scheme
  • The 50 foot high stink pipe to let off sewer vapours that will be a permanent ‘legacy’ of the scheme

Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh, H&F Council Leader, said: “It is stunning that Thames Water should even consider building a huge construction compound in the heart of Fulham. We were not properly consulted in their initial consultation and this has come out of the blue for most people. However, Thames Water has confirmed that they have not made a final decision yet so this is a battle worth fighting. From tonight’s meeting they should already be getting the message that Fulham says no to the super sewer!”

The meeting heard that 13,000 members at The Hurlingham Club are against Thames Water’s plan as well as numerous local organisations and businesses including the Hurlingham Yacht Club and residents from Philpot Square to the Piper Building.

Carnwath Road resident Dr Anthony Jelley says: “It was absolutely clear that everyone here is telling Thames Water to bog off, in no uncertain terms. No way will the super sewer be sited in Sands End.”

Thames Water defended the proposed 20-mile long tunnel, which would be bigger than the Channel Tunnel, by saying it is designed to increase the capacity of London's Victorian sewage system and reduce the amount of sewage spilling into the river after heavy rainfall. However Mr Stride admitted: “We don’t know much about the Carnwath Road site and we haven’t done a thorough analysis in the past three weeks.”

To the surprise of local MP Greg Hands, Mr Stride also tried to claim that residents had been notified of the plans to use the Carnwath Road sites in a communication sent with water bills but there is no evidence that this communication ever happened.

Mr Hands, MP for Fulham & Chelsea, said: “Most people acknowledge that there is a problem with some raw sewage seeping into the Thames when it rains heavily but we have to ask ourselves if this problem is so large that it requires a £3.6 billion solution. There are many other valuable things that we could do with that money.”

Local resident Raj Bhatia said: “I have been monitoring this scheme for many years and the reality is the costs keep spiralling and there are sensible more cost effective alternatives. A shorter smarter tunnel, like the Babtie option combined with other measures, could be as effective at a fraction of the cost.”

London Assembly Member Kit Malthouse highlighted that Thames Water officials had originally considered the Carnwath Road site as unsuitable but are now considering a u-turn due to protests elsewhere.

The seven years of construction work is also predicted to cause gridlock on already congested local roads as well as the inevitable noise nuisance caused by heavy drilling equipment.

A show of hands at the end of the meeting showed 100% of people in the room against Thames Water’s plans.

Phil Stride, head of London Tideway Tunnels at Thames Water, said no final decision would be made until after a second consultation in the autumn. He said: “Since the consultation closed we have been refining options for the tunnel, including reducing the number of sites required, and identifying alternative sites which are now under consideration. We remain committed to ensuring everyone’s views are heard, and will give everyone an equal opportunity to comment on our revised proposals.”

Mr Stride urged anyone with comments or questions to get in touch.

Thames Water will launch the second phase of their consultation later this year and the project is set to be one of the biggest engineering projects ever attempted in the capital with the earliest expected finish date 2020.

Nearly 3,000 people have signed a council petition questioning the merits of Thames Water’s super-sewer. The petition was originally launched in 2008 but has now been updated to focus on the specific risks to sites in the borough. Visit www.lbhf.gov.uk/sewerpetition (opens new window).

» Send us your comments now

Human waste should be composted, not thrown into the sea. We have the technology. It is a disgrace to our culture that we are throwing a potentially valuable energy source (gas) and soil fertility factor (compost, when properly constituted) into the sea. We are living in the 21st not the 19th century. It's already being done: we should do more of it. We would be making our own gas and improving soil fertility for the future, ultimately producing better quality food for our plants and animals: and us!
From David on 25/04/2011 at 16:11
I have read a fair amount about the giant sewer construction and given the scale, I am not surprised everyone potentially affected is showing serious NIMBYism. Surely, the answer is for Thames Water to construct an artificial island in the Thames and work from there thereby allowing it to ship spoil away, easily and inexpensively by water instead of road. Nobody gets blighted, the roads are left free and Thames Water will win countless environmental awards?
From Michael Carter on 19/04/2011 at 10:29
Fulham's infrastructure is already at full stretch to say the least, and to even consider adding a 24/7 heavy construction site to the mix for 7 years is an absurdity. This cannot be allowed to proceed under any circumstances.
From Mr C Cole on 17/04/2011 at 19:13
There is a Public Relations "war" going on. Thames Water will decide in their own time, based on ALL the factors, where to build the entry points to the Thames Tunnel (NOT "super sewer" - water is stored in a tank and then pumped out later). Mr Greenhalgh has his eyes on Council tax receipts from awful new huge apartment blocks, not on the essential infrastructure needed to support his development projects!
From Mrs Una Hodgkins on 10/04/2011 at 11:35
We are appalled that such a project could be considered feasible in the Carnwarth Road area. The impact would be appalling and grossly irresponsible in both the short and long term. It cannot be allowed to take place. It must be stopped
From The Coopers on 09/04/2011 at 20:09
Comparison of scheme proposed by Thames Water with Babtie option: EU Directive requires reduction of pollution, not elimination. Member States must decide reduction limits to suit their circumstances by schemes which do not 'entail excessive cost'. Thames Water estimate that Lee Tunnel will resolve 40% of overall pollution in the two rivers, Thames Tunnel the rest. With a partial tunnel Babtie option is designed to capture 70% of the overflows at a cost of £895 million at 2004 price levels. Add 50% contingency - cost, say £1.3 billion. Assuming capturing 70% overflows would also reduce 70% of the remaining pollution, i.e. 42%, the balance of pollution left untreated by Babtie option would be 60 minus 42=18%. Estimated cost of scheme proposed by Thames Water: £3.6 billion. Therefore cost of treating 18% pollution not resolved by Babtie option: £3.6 - £1.3 = £2.3 billion! It is absolutely essential that alternative/s are considered.
From Raj Bhatia on 09/04/2011 at 15:20
If Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh is prepared to call Carnwath Road "the heart of Fulham" it shows how little justification the rest of his NIBMY objections have. He would serve our interests better by ensuring that disruption is kept to a minimnum from this beneficial scheme by, for example, encouraging Thames Water to use the river to remove the spoils. Mr Hands'' reference to sewage "seeping" into the Thames also seems to dishonestly misrepresent the situation.
From AndyKn on 08/04/2011 at 18:25
No site will be suitable in this crowded city but the Fulham Carnworth Road site seems to be the worst in view of disruption, traffic, local schools, stink, health,crowded housing, and the possibility of a terrible effect on local real estate values and the consequent exodus of residents to other parts of London.
From PATRICIA HICKS on 08/04/2011 at 15:38

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