Hot topic: super sewer
Sewer plan will cost billions but won't stop sewage flooding homes.
The council is questioning whether the benefits of the Thames sewer tunnel justify its £2.2 billion price tag. Thames Water plan to build a 20 mile long sewage storage tank under the Thames to prevent sewage flowing into the Thames. They have said the starting point will be in H&F. While they have given an assurance that Ravenscourt Park is ‘highly unlikely’ to be picked, a question mark remains over where the construction site will be. The huge entrance to the tunnel will be the size of four football pitches. The council is asking whether the super sewer provides value for money or whether it is a white elephant.
Share your views
Are you happy to pay £200 for the super sewer?
Are there better solutions for a cleaner Thames?
Please read our publishing policy.
» H&F response to Thames tunnel consultation - 15/05/09 
(46KB)
» Letter to Chief Executives from Nigel Pallace, H&F council's Director of Environment - 19/01/09 
(22KB)
» Council refusal of permission to test sites - 22/12/08 (19KB)
» Thames' request to test sites - 09/12/08 (454KB)
» Report from the public meeting - 17/11/08
» Thames Water's draft public engagement strategy - 04/11/08
» Background documentation - notes of meetings, plans and proposed route
» Watch the 17 November 2008 public meeting video on H&F:TV 
» Watch the report on the BBC News website
Why cannot Thames Water use the waste ground next to Frank Banfield park for the sewer hole? This area is called Hammersmith Embankment and it is currently boarded up. It has been disused for the last few years and is currently used as a temporay parking area.
Neil Phillips on 20/07/09
I agree with the construction of a big sewer as this could help avoid further pollution to the river Thames during floods and avoid the death of animal life in an already polluted river. This would be a civilised thing to do if we want a greener world.
From Marzia Brancaccio on 23/11/08
I attended the meeting (on Super Sewer) tonight. The Thames/Government case was very weak: huge cost and feeble justification. I strongly support your proposal for an independent report. May I suggest this investigation considers why the sewer should follow the river? By putting the sewer beneath the line of the river the tunnel length will be doubled [obviously hugely adding to tunnelling cost], it must go deeper [as it's longer, the same gradient will take it deeper at Beckton, further adding to cost], and it needs all those shafts, more costly, eyesores, congestion points, and so on. A direct tunnel, alongside or beneath the Crossrail tunnel through central London, will be shorter and needs only two shafts, one at the Beckton end [for the rock tunneller] on Thames Water property, the other will be the same shaft used by Crossrail [and take the mud tunneller], so won't affect Hammersmith. The safety issues [relating to single shaft tunnels] raised by Thames Water will be solved as the Crossrail tunnels can be the escape tunnels for the Sewer tunnel. All that saves money, probably lots of it. There will be extra cost, as the Bazalgette sewer outfalls, that now run into the Thames, must be diverted to join the re-routed Super Sewer, but those links will be short, small in size, and thus much cheaper than digging the longer sewer. Please remember: Thames Water don't care about the cost of this project - as Hammersmith [& other London] ratepayers must pay - because they will simply state: "We have been told to do it by the Government, so complain to them" - that, in effect, is what the TW representative said tonight. So don't let them con you and us: DEMAND a rigorous review of all alternatives and let us see a properly calculated cost-benefit analysis.
From Anthony Sleight on 17/11/08
Why did Thames Water sell land and property that could have been used for this project at vast profit, before announcing their plans to take away our open space?
From Jane Thurston-Hoskins on 13/11/08
During the last few days, all the main newspapers have reported on the vital health implications of green spaces for local people. I can vouch for this, as Furnivall Gardens was the only thing that kept my little family going through difficult times following the 1990s recession. My young children learned to cycle there and to see their parents in a carefree moment, away from the struggle to keep our business going. Surely the next generation has a right to the same small haven of peace and sanity. Who are Thames Water to take this away from us?
From P. Thrower on 13/11/08
Why not start at the Queen's Wharf inlet, adjacent to Hammersmith Bridge, always full of unsightly flotsam & jetsam. Good road access, AND by an outfall.
From D. Donnelly on 07/11/08
I am in full support of the scheme to build the sewer. There are many green spaces in London and we can afford to lose a couple for this important work to take place. I believe the council are only protesting this because they do not want the sewer in "their back garden". You make it very easy to protest against this sewer and very hard to find a way to support it. So this is my support, please build the sewer asap.
From F. Tunnicliff on 05/11/08
The Leader of my Council (H&F) is promulgating views without any supporting evidence whatsoever. For example: "This is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.", "The cost is too great...", "The cost... outweighs any benefit...", "The main driver appears to be the Government's desire..." These opinions were listed in a letter I received recently from Stephen Greenhalgh, Leader of my Council. There was no evidence to support his assertions".
From C. J. Page on 05/11/08
The proposal should be opposed as it does not alleviate local flooding; will deprive local residents of an important amenity space who use it for enjoyment and sport. In addition, it will deprive the blind based at Rylett Road of an important area: one runs there every morning with a minder. Those with dogs frequently use the park for exercise and relaxation. It would be a huge loss for little benefit to the local community.
From Caroline Banszky on 03/11/08
This is crazy. This is going to destroy my son's childhood.
From Paul Curran on 01/11/08
I am not a resident of H&F, but I would like to make a suggestion if I may. Instead of an under GROUND sewer pipe, why not make it an under WATER one. Lay it under the Thames with no need to dig anything up and feed it from the existing outflows piping them to the underwater sewer.
From John Gillbert on 21/10/08
I would prefer 8 years of building work at Furnivall Gardens to another 50 years of ever-increasing amounts of sewage in the Thames. Also, I don't mind paying my share, but if the £200 each means the full cost will be borne by H&F residents, then I think the Council should protest and make sure the cost is shared by all Londoners.
From Meher Oliaji on 11/10/08
I am horrified by the proposals to dig up Ravenscourt Park (or Furnivall Gardens for that matter). I am not against the sewer in principle but SURELY a better solution can be found. There is precious little green open space in Hammersmith and the park, therefore, is a highly valuable resource. There are play areas for children, sports facilities not to mention the wildlife which gives so much pleasure to local residents. It would be heart-breaking to see this destroyed.
From Diana Beaumont on 11/10/08
If this will benefit the local community in the long run, I would like to hear more.
From Benjamin Clark on 05/10/08
The comments on the e-petition must surely make it clear what a devastating impact closing Ravenscourt Park would have - it's no exaggeration to say it would rip the heart out of the community. It's not NIMBYism to say put it in Duke's Meadow - the social impact of locating it there would be fractional in comparison.
From Alan Mackinnon on 01/10/08
The destruction of Furnivall Gardens would deprive the borough of a treasured and unique amenity used by families and friends out for a stroll and importantly, a much used safe thoroughfare for people on their way to work or school during the week. I urge the council to conduct a survey to reveal the great numbers of people who use and value the park. To destroy it and consequently the part it plays in many people’s daily lives, would be corporate vandalism on a grand scale.
From Stephen Pizzey on 24/09/08
Is it really £200 per H&F resident? I'm just wondering if you have computed the cost correctly. I understand that the cost will be spread throughout London and not just fall on riverside residents.
From Anonymous on 23/09/08
I am against the Thames Water proposal for 'Super Sewer' excavation works in Hammersmith. The disruption to residents and the loss of amenities such as Ravenscourt Park over the number of years necessary for its completion are unacceptable.
From Anthony Hardwick on 14/09/08
I think it would be an enormous loss to residents and other users of the park to make this the main drilling and extraction point. There must be other candidates which wouldn't deprive people of one of the most cherished open spaces in the borough for several years.
From Gary Gibbon on 07/09/08
I am completely against it. Not only is this place so lovely, but it is also too small for holding such a huge project. Furthermore, it seems not sufficient to help against flooding anyway!
From Valentina Pilloni on 03/09/08
Even if this sewer is needed, why are we potentially allowing one of the very few open spaces in the borough to be destroyed? Thames Water have other suitable sites, not least the very nearby 'luxury' flats development, along the river towards the Black Lion pub. It's disgraceful that an area so highly cherished by local residents is now going to be sacrificed. Thames Water should be ashamed of themselves...The Council must do everything within its powers to prevent this. Planning approval should not be given. If it is, the Council's administration will not be voted back in the next election and we will have lost a valuable resource for our children and our well-being.
From Dan Wetzels on 02/09/08
I think Ravenscourt Park/ Furnivall Gardens is an excellent site for this. It will benefit Hammersmith and Fulham and London as a whole, in the long term, so the Council should support it.
From Kieran Loughran on 29/08/08
I can't believe people are convinced by any of the arguments put forward for the sewer as a solution to certain issues. Flooding, sewage backup, etc. can all be sorted without this monstrosity. It is going to be huge. It is going to take years of building, which will stop the river and riverside in Hammersmith being used for leisure. No more strolls by the river, no more rowing or sailing, as it is going to be a huge building site both on and in the river.
From Yasmin Hassan on 27/08/08
I'm extremely unhappy about the prospect of Furnivall Gardens being dug up for the tunnel entrance. Not only will this destroy a well used and much loved open space, it will disrupt those living on the river directly in front and is likely to have a negative impact on historic buildings that border the gardens. From other forum sites, I understand that there are other alternatives available to Thames Water, both in terms of solution and siting for this proposal - one user has mentioned the Distillery Road site next to the Thames Water HQ in Chancellors Road. H&F Council needs to ensure that Thames Water adequately and responsibly consider all alternatives and the best solution is chosen taking into account local residents’ views.
From S Tomlinson on 26/08/08
Hi, I'm writing to lend my voice to the opposition to the proposed super sewer in Furnivall Gardens. Please keep me informed and let me know if there is anything I can do to ensure that this does not go ahead.
From Liana Coyne on 20/08/08
The latest on this super sewer is that Hammersmith & Fulham Council are suggesting to Thames Water to build the entrance in Dukes Meadows. As a resident living in one of the three council estates that border Dukes Meadows, I will be lobbying our local Hounslow councillors to make sure H&F Council are taken to task over such a stupid suggestion after thousands of pounds of charity funding has been spent in restoring it back to it's former glory.
From Ian Richardson on 16/08/08
Absolutely disgraceful! How can something like this be allowed to undermine other positive projects (i.e. Furnival Gardens, King Street development). There are other sites nearby that would be far less-impacting on the community's green-space.
From Charles Blair on 11/08/08
We think the behaviour of Thames Water is cavalier and mercenary. We find it hard to believe that they were not aware that they would need land for their proposed super sewer only four months before it received approval!
From Russell & Sarah Petit on 09/08/08
I am astonished that the lead and deputy councillor take such an intransigent stand. The minimal environmental benefits that they dismiss so readily include the health and safety of their constituents every time they use the river recreationally or come into contact with the river. Thousands upon thousands of tonnes of raw sewage enter the river every year through these sewers and the detritus is left on the foreshore risking the health of the many people who use the river. Apart from this, there is the river ecology which suffered a major fish kill in August 2004 from these sewer overflows. You should remember that the river is the jewel in your crown and if you don't look after it you will lose your best asset. If you looked into it, as I have, you would also find that Thames Water only see sewage bills increasing by £40, and that is by 2020!! The short term inconvenience is more than balanced by the long term gain. The sewage problem is something that us in west London have been complaining about for years; you are so out of touch with the people you are supposed to represent. You should work with Thames Water to get the best way of doing this, with the least disruption, rather than just saying NO!
From Dr Charles Barterham on 07/08/08
A considerable number of streets in Hammersmith have suffered flooding from overloaded sewers in recent summers - in particular Askew Road, Cathnor Road, Cobbold Road, Boscombe Road, Ellingham Road, Hammersmith Grove, Cambridge Grove, Upper Mall, Hammersmith Terrace to name but a few. The Hammersmith Society has previously welcomed the government providing funding for a Tunnel being built under the Thames to resolve the problem. However, the Hammersmith Society is extremely concerned at the prospect of a huge hole being dug in Furnivall Gardens as a means of pumping out the soil from the river for the construction of the tunnel. And in particular, that this hole is likely to adversely affect Furnivall Gardens for an estimated eight years! It will also have a very adverse effect on the Pier and nearby exceptional listed buildings. Hammersmith and Fulham as a borough already statistically has one of the lowest levels of open spaces. Furnivall Gardens is a very special and much used area of open space in our borough. The Hammersmith Society has already objected to plans to reduce the area available for both residents and those who work in the borough to enjoy its riverside amenities by the proposed bridge across the A4 as part of the Town Hall Regeneration Project. The hole and all that would inevitably go with it would effectively make Furnivall Gardens unusable by residents and workers for years to come - and what would happen to the Thames Path which goes through these Gardens? We understand that the little used area of open space of Homefields in Chiswick to the south of the A4 had been identified as where the spoil would be extracted from the river - and there have been few objections to this plan from local residents and amenity societies - can Thames Water please explain why this change is being considered? Is it cost saving? What other options have been considered? Please can they go back to this original plan for all our sakes.
From Angela Clarke, Chairman of The Hammersmith Society, on 06/08/08
If it is needed, put it in Dukes Meadows, not in heavily residential areas or in the middle of parks. What sort of crazy idea is that?? I gather the sewerage problem begins in Dukes Meadows, so why not start a tunnel there?
From Helena Coope on 04/08/08
I would like to air my view that I would not be at all happy with the disruption and cost of this plan to replace the sewer with the Super Sewer, planning to stop in Hammersmith. I absolutely oppose this.
From Anonymous on 04/08/08
I completely agree that this proposal to build it in Hammersmith is mad, for all the reasons you say.
From Anonymous on 31/07/08
It was never intended to start in H&F territory - fight it all the way!
From Penny Walsh on 30/07/08
The loss of Furnivall Gardens would affect the quality of life for hundreds of people who walk or cycle through the park throughout the day. The works and associated river activity would be devastating and unbearable to the community who live on the moorings (who are also council tax payers).
From Stephen Pizzey on 30/07/08
If ever there was a case of NIMBY-ism this is it. When there is heavy rain, sewage ends up untreated in the Thames. Trying to convince us the tunnel is not needed by saying the Thames is now clean and pristine and full of sea-horses rather misses the point. "They are only doing it to save EU fines." Well yes - they get fined if raw sewage ends up in the river, or is H&F OK with that?
From Simon Cork on 30/07/08
Of course we don’t want sewage seeping into the Thames, but surely building a £2.5 billion septic tank under our river, obliterating open spaces, bringing chaos to the borough for eight years while landing residents with a £200 plus bill isn't the answer. This would send a large number of people into water poverty. We must look at other solutions to this problem.
Reply from H&F Council Leader, Cllr Greenhalgh
Surely there is enough space somewhere like Dukes Meadows to start this tunnel? It may cost a few million pounds more, but in percentage terms it’s unlikely to be much.
From Martin Ridley on 30/07/08
I strongly object to a sewer being built and affecting parkland, which is needed to keep the air clean and provide children with a play area in an area which is already blighted by busy roads. It also appears that it won't achieve anything, other than to reduce EU fines, which is madness. In addition, if it were to be built, it is Chiswick that should be the correct starting place. But clearly they have lobbied hard, and it is now being passed on to Hammersmith. Please object strongly on our behalf. If what you say is true, then it's outrageous.
From Margaret Cronin on 30/07/08
I can't believe they are considering Hammersmith for this when there is a lack of open space and a huge amount of traffic that will be affected. I live in Mall Road, and there are only three roads I can park in if I want to be close to home. Taking over Furnivall Gardens will no doubt mean parking will be restricted on the roads close by. I feel that Thames Water should be open and disclose why they are no longer choosing Chiswick, given that it is the start of the overflow. Dukes Meadows is likely to have less of an impact on traffic and residents than any area in Hammersmith.
From Anonymous on 29/07/08
I am a frequent user of both Ravenscourt Park and Furnivall Gardens. On Sunday both were full of people of all ages enjoying the summer sunshine. Every day people walk along side the Thames and through Furnivall. It is crazy that we residents of the borough are being expected to pay to lose a lovely waterside open area. We need more parks and gardens, not less. Surely Dukes Meadows would be a better place for this monster?
From Caroline MacMillan on 29/07/08
Can you give us some background to this please - why Thames Water wants to build a super sewer? Is it simply EU regulations (and what are these)? Or is London falling behind on other indicators of performance?
From Rosemary Pettit on 29/07/08
I would like you to know that I will not be resting assured that you will be fighting Thames Water and the Government every inch of the way over the sewer. You are basically preventing a company (that would not need to do so unless necessary) from cleaning up its act and stopping raw sewage from entering the Thames.
From Simon Wilde on 29/07/08
I fully support the Thames Tunnel project. It is vital for London to continue to grow. I fully accept that there will be some disruption to the borough’s residents and I understand that it may last 3-5 years. It is expected. I’m not looking forward to it, but I understand the importance of it and need for the project. This is a large project, but it is also a very important one. Rather than playing politics with it, the Council should be working with Thames Water to ensure the impact is minimised and completed within the minimum amount of time. I understand that the project may mean that one of the riverside parks is ripped up. But let’s be reasonable and logical. Thames Water will have to pay to put it back. Simple? It’s not an issue. Some times you need to take one for the team. This time, it is the turn of Hammersmith & Fulham to help London out.
From A. Brown on 22/07/08
I am so glad that the Council is going to fight on this issue. In these days of obesity problems and stress in the community amongst young people, as well as those in the work place, it is more and more important to encourage people out into the open. The riverside is one of the places which London has to offer allowing peace and relaxation to enter people's lives. It is vitally important to preserve this very special place in the heart of Hammersmith. Ravenscourt Park is also of great importance to the community, especially now that Chiswick House and Park is getting so preciously smartened up that it will undoubtedly eventually restrict morning dog-walkers who so enjoy their morning stroll. London is still such a wonderful city - its uniqueness must not be destroyed.
From Jan Morgan on 20/07/08
Councillor Nicholas Botterill, H&F Council Deputy Leader:
We are shocked at Thames Water’s u-turn as they always led us to believe that the Thames Tunnel would start in Chiswick. It now appears they have changed their minds. This is worrying news and we are pressing Thames Water for urgent answers. A 30 meter wide tunnel entrance near the Thames can only be justified in a massive area of open land well away from built up areas. There is no area like that in Hammersmith & Fulham so the only answer must be to put the entrance further up river, where previously intended, at Dukes Meadow or thereabouts. It cannot possibly go anywhere in H&F as that would mean utterly destroying somewhere like Furnivall Gardens or another one of our beautiful parks.
Council leader Stephen Greenhalgh:
This would be a disaster for our borough and a disaster our residents who would have to pay for it while enduring eight years of misery for minimial environmental benefits. As a council we are going to fight this madness tooth and nail and would urge our residents to back us. This super sewage tank under the Thames would have virtually no impact on flooding situation. It is designed purely to meet an EU regulation on pollution when in fact environmentalists are saying that The Thames is so clean that even seahorses are thriving. The Government wants this super septic tank so that it won’t have to pay any more EU fines – yet it is not prepared to pay for it and is landing all Thames Water bill payers with a super stealth tax instead. The Government should be challenging the absurdity of the EU directive and standing up for common sense. Of course we don’t want sewage seeping into the Thames, but surely building a £2.5 billion septic tank under our river, obliterating open spaces, bringing chaos to the borough for eight years while landing residents with a £200 plus bill isn't the answer. This would send a large number of people into water poverty. We must look at other solutions to this problem.
