Super sewer decision stink
Wednesday March 3, 2010
Fears that Londoners’ views on the super-sewer will be bypassed look set to come true after a Government Minister admitted that a new national quango is likely to hear the planning applications rather than local councils.
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn MP this week said he was ‘minded’ to refer the plans for the £2.2 billion mega-pipe to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), despite concerns from residents.
The IPC is a new quango with the power to decide planning applications of national importance, like airports and power stations, but a prominent residents’ group is up in arms at the suggestion that local views could be overridden.
Raj Bhatia, Chairman of The Stamford Brook Residents Association, who describes the super-sewer as ‘ill-considered’, says: “The IPC will speed up approvals but will deny the thirteen affected councils their right to consider planning and highway decisions within their boroughs.”
In January Hammersmith & Fulham (H&F) Council voiced concerns that local people would be cut out from the super-sewer planning process.
The council is angry that when it comes to paying for the super-sewer the Government says Thames Water customers - who are mainly in London - should foot the bill. But when it comes to gaining the necessary planning permission it appears the views of local people can be bypassed as the project is deemed to be ‘of national importance and will ensure the UK complies with the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive’.
Councillor Paul Bristow, H&F Cabinet Member for Residents Services, says: “If Londoners are to pay for the super-sewer then we have a democratic right to decide whether or not we want it through the usual planning process. If the super-sewer is of national importance - and is to be heard by the IPC - then the whole nation should pay for it. The Government cannot have it both ways.”
Thames Water says the sewer - which will take at least 8 years to build - is designed to stop some sewage flowing into the river at times of heavy rainfall. But H&F Council believes the scheme will prove too damaging to the lives of residents and not bring enough improvements to justify the colossal cost.
The council argues that the tunnel will lead to ‘unacceptable disruption’ to parks and open spaces along the banks and would put many residents in ‘water poverty’ as rates go up to pay for it. Neighbouring Kensington & Chelsea Council also has grave concerns about the scheme.
“It is our view that Thames Water should be considering options for making the river cleaner but we do not believe that a convincing case has been made for this particular scheme. Nor do we believe that alternative options have been properly considered,” said Cllr Bristow. “The social costs of the scheme will be felt most acutely at a local level and these will be severe and long lasting. The current super-sewer plan is the most costly solution to the problem of sewage overflows into the Thames. Thames Water customers will foot the bill with no opportunity to say whether this is the right scheme at a price that people can afford.”
He warned few home owners would be able to sell because property prices would fall. The council is urging Thames Water to examine more sustainable long-term solutions - like the separation of sewage and flood water instead of using a combined drainage system.
