Super Sewer Summit call to arms

Skip Navigation

Super Sewer Summit call to arms

Wednesday November 16, 2011

An urgent public meeting to challenge Thames Water’s ‘ludicrous’ decision to dump the giant super sewer drive shaft on a residential street in Fulham has been called by the council.

The Super Sewer Summit on December 7, from 7pm at Hurlingham and Chelsea School on Peterborough Road, will allow locals to probe Thames Water’s decision to earmark south Fulham for the main sewer construction site for their £4.1billion Thames Tunnel.

Thames Water’s u-turn, in deviating from their original choice outside of the borough, has sparked a wave of protests from residents and businesses south of Lillie Road – especially in the tight knit residential community around Carnwath Road.

Despite admitting at a meeting in October that using the Fulham riverside would be more costly and more disruptive to more people Thames Water named Carnwath Road as the ‘preferred site’ for the main west London tunnel drive shaft earlier this month.

The public meeting, organised by Hammersmith & Fulham (H&F) Council, will be the first chance that residents, councillors and the MP have had to publicly question Thames Water about their change of heart.

Cllr Nick Botterill, H&F Council’s Deputy Leader, said: "It is ludicrous that a densely packed residential community has been selected as the main drive site when Thames Water officials have admitted that it will affect more people and cost more money. We need to understand what is driving Thames Water’s bizarre u-turn and then persuade them that there are better alternatives.”

Fears have emerged that 29,000 lorries will bring roads like New King’s Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road to a standstill during the six years of construction work.

Anti super sewer site campaigners, backed by H&F Council, have vowed to fight the proposal and launch a concerted effort to persuade Thames Water to reverse the decision in time for the final selection deadline - which is expected next spring.

If construction work goes ahead on the Fulham riverside there would be an average of 31 extra lorry trips every day on west London streets for two years during tunnelling and around 33 per day when the tunnel is being lined.

Thames Water plans to move all plant and construction materials by road to reduce costs. Only excavated spoil will be taken by barge, despite the existence of the wharf being given as one of their key reasons for using Carnwath Road.

Earlier in the autumn the Selborne Commission - which was an independent study and report sponsored by five London councils – announced that a ‘shorter tunnel, combined with green infrastructure solutions that are built up incrementally in the medium to long term, would be both compliant with EU directives and less costly and disruptive to Londoners’.

Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh, H&F Council Leader, says: “Fulham is uniting to say no to these plans. The Super Sewer Summit is a call to arms and we will all need to man the barricades if we are to defend our close knit residential neighbourhood from Thames Water’s bulldozers.

“Any resident south of the Lillie Road who is unaware of Thames Water’s plans needs to understand that the super sewer is the biggest threat to our quality of life that we will face this decade.

“It is a real and present danger with the potential to blight the lives of thousands of west Londoners from the heart of Fulham and Parsons Green to Chelsea and all along the New Kings Road.

“By proposing to use the Fulham riverside as the main west London drive shaft Thames Water is threatening homes, jobs and local schools - not to mention the disruption on our roads for six years. We will continue to defend residents' and water bill payers' interests by highlighting the sensible alternatives that exist for cleaning up the Thames."

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 nineteenth 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.”

Campaigners have asked Thames Water to provide a document specifying how Fulham was chosen as the main drive shaft, including the pros and cons of using other sites, and to explain why their thinking has changed since the phase one consultation.

The Super Sewer Summit is open to all residents and takes place from 7pm on Wednesday December 7 at Hurlingham and Chelsea School, Peterborough Road, SW6 3ED.

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

Sign the petition at www.lbhf.gov.uk/sewerpetition (opens new window).

» Send us your comments now

I attended last night's Peterborough Road meeting with an open mind. As a local resident I fear for the disruption, yet I also believe that something must urgently be done to prevent the disastrous sewage spills that we have suffered following heavy rain in recent years (most recently in June 2011). However I feel I must comment on the behaviour of the politicians present at the meeting. Is it really too much to expect our elected politicians to engage with this important subject in a reasoned and adult manner?
From Charles on 08/12/2011 at 13:10
The council on one hand gives planning permition to build thousands of new homes but does not wish to take responsibility for the consequences of such developments. Clean healthy Thames please.
From Robert on 07/12/2011 at 17:32
Does anybody realy think that 33 lorries a day is going to make any noticable differance to the traffic carnage in the area?
There must be thousands of vehicles an hour using the roads as it is.
From Carl on 07/12/2011 at 11:17
I don't live that close to the proposed area but I do feel sorry for the people who might have to endure 7 years of traffic and construction misery.

What I will be upset about is having to pay extra for something that appears to be the equivalent of a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It seems to be an over engineered solution.

Given that the sewer works will have to go somewhere, they should be in an area that will affect the least number of people - surely?
From Jackson Ellis on 03/12/2011 at 19:26
We object Thames Water''s proposals concerning the "super sewer" for being too expensive, too disruptive over an unacceptably long period for Fulham residents to have to tolerate.
From Mr & Mrs G. Barnes on 26/11/2011 at 19:53
Notwithstanding all the very good points already made as to why this project should not go ahead, none of us should be fooled that this project will come in within the 4.1 billion budget or within the 7 year prescribed timetable. Double it and we might be nearer the truth. This proposition is a monster and should be recognised as such.
From Stephen Lewis on 23/11/2011 at 10:23
London's sewers, after decades of neglect and correspondingly depressed water bills, need upgrading. Every strong rain flushes raw sewage in the river that's one of the prime recreational assets of the borough and a guarantor of healthy property values. We must act now to minimize the danger of combined sewer overflows. Please come in numbers on Dec 7 to support the "Don't **** in my river" campaign!
From Andreas on 23/11/2011 at 00:02
Dear Andy

Yes of course the Council are trying to fool you: they want to build the next large riverside development for luxury flats (with St George, probably). It will be like Imperial Wharf nearby, next to Chelsea Bridge. It is what they call the "South Fulham Regeneration" area, only it isn't regeneration: is Imperial Wharf a "regenerated" site? I don't think so: it's mostly empty!
From Una Hodgkins on 20/11/2011 at 22:13
Building a long term construction site on a road that is already constantly blocked by traffic is stupid. Building one near so many schools is idiotic. Doing it when you don't need to is criminal.
From Bryants on 18/11/2011 at 13:25
@Peter Littlehales

TW have issued a perfectly rational and comprehensive reply to the Selborne Report at the following link which answers all the points made.

http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/doclib/thames-waters-initial-response-to-the-thames-tunnel-commission/

Disclaimer: I am not remotely connected with Thames Water in any way whatsoever, I just think they''ve got a good engineering solution to a growing problem.
From Single Aspect on 18/11/2011 at 12:43
For Jim R and all other misinformed creatures out there: What Londoner's lives exactly will be better of with this shameful proposal? Clearly not the ones paying close to 4billion pounds for this madness with a increase in up to 40% on their water bills for the next 10 years. Surely not the 15.000 residents and 5000 children that live in the 'proposed' construction site. I assume you mean it 'will be better' for the 'londoners' such as the politicians that had their careers launched in Barnes (the original and lets face it, a THOUSAND times better site). But then again, they don''t live nowhere near the disruption, and clearly are not the ones paying for their water bills either. Is SIMPLY SHAMEFUL what the combination of irresponsible corporations and INCOMPETENT politicians can do to our lives. SHAME ON YOU ALL that out of sheer ignorance or political abuse approve of this MADNESS.
From CarlaK on 18/11/2011 at 12:29
Barnes is surely the _only_ sensible place for this. The bird sanctuary was once a water works and can be again. While the work goes on, the soon birds will adapt and once it's done, they won't lose property value by the remaining constructions.
From Pete in Fulham on 18/11/2011 at 11:21
Can someone advise as to who is the final decision maker on Thames Water''s appalling proposal. Presumably the Government will have the final say.
It is about time that they, whoever they are, indicate what their feelings are.
From The Coopers on 18/11/2011 at 07:52
Stop being NIMBYs. London needs the sewer.
From Sewer Rat on 17/11/2011 at 18:25
I am horrified at Thames Water's decision to select Fulham as the preferred site knowing it is more densely populated than other sites, and that the traffic on Wandsworth Bridge Road is already a problem for local residents. Additional lorries using this road for access back and forth will bring the road to a standstill. I urge Thames Water to reconsider their choices.
From Ms Naylor on 17/11/2011 at 17:23
The scheme seems to be flawed on the following counts:- 1.Selecting a residential area for the main shaft. Why not Barn Elms, The Wetlands, anywhere away from people? 2. Cost. Since I first heard about the proposal 18 months ago the the cost has escalated by almost 1BN. Where will it end? 6BN, 7BN? 3.Traffic disruption and associated pollution for years. 4.Why is it cheaper to use road transport rather than river transport? Much bigger loads can be moved by barge than by lorry. 5. The Selborne Report has identified cheaper solutions using shorter tunnels disrupting fewer people over a shorter construction period. Why is the report being ignored? 6.There is commercial reason -which I am not au fait with - that somehow makes major projects of this sort beneficial for TW's finances.
From Peter Littlehales on 17/11/2011 at 16:11
Delighted that you''re making a stand on this issue . An outrageous waste of money, and the new site for the bore hole will be totally distruptive for years.
From Piers CROKE on 17/11/2011 at 16:02
Should TW plans go ahead it would be catastrophic for the residents, businesses and the Fulham/Chelsea community as a whole. Probably a good way to fight TW would be legally, if residents and businesses were to contribute all together towards taking legals steps claiming from loss of business to disruption etc. probably TW would be forced to review their plans.
From GF on 17/11/2011 at 15:45
Grow up! This childish behaviour is beneath a council. London needs modern sewers. Just let engineers get on with their jobs and make all of Londoners' lives better.
From JimR on 17/11/2011 at 15:42
Have they moved the site, the last time I heard it was on Carnwath St, more Commercial than Residential. Or are the Council trying to fool us for their own hidden agenda?
From Andykn on 17/11/2011 at 15:41

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