Forum Topic

Super Sewer Nightmare

I am persuaded that something needs to be done about London's crumbling Victorian sewerage system but I can't believe Thames Water have actually visited the area before coming up with their daft plans. This isn't a question of just digging up the roads for a bit but is one of the largest infrastructure projects ever undertaken in London and where the sewer opens has to be one of the main construction sites. It would appear it is only speculation at the moment but it is hard to see where else in the borough you would put it (assuming it has to be near the river). However while the location might suit Thames Water geographically it is a disaster in terms of traffic management and too close to the Hammersmith gyratory not to have a really significant impact on congestion in West London - for eight years!

Ellen Kearney ● 6129d86 Comments

According to ChiswickW4.com there was an even bigger dump of sewage this weekend which has obliterated most of the aquatic wild life on this stretch of the Thames.

Paul Corcoran ● 5072d

With H&F News gone the Council seem to be using their propaganda space in the Chronicle to give a profile to residents groups opposed to the plan. A useful antidote to this is Chris Underwood's excellent Shepherd's Bush blog. He points out that Thames Water pumped 130,000 tonnes of sewage into the river last Thursday because the existing systems couldn't cope with the heavy fall of rain.

Karen Cooper ● 5083d

Ellen, the short answer is 'yes', you would be wrong in thinking that. Our consultation process is a genuine one. Where people have suggested alternative sites, we have a duty to listen to them (otherwise there would be no point in consulting).To be clear though, this isn't a case of changing our plans just because people on the other side of the river protested against our phase one consultation proposal for Barn Elms Playing Fields.  That site remains an option.Originally we thought the Carnwath Road Riverside sites would be too small for our needs, but following a review of our tunneling strategy this is no longer the case. That's why we need to evaluate the sites in detail as a possible alternative to using Barn Elms Playing Fields. Our second round of consultation is due to begin this autumn, when we will present revised, updated plans - still work in progress currently. There are two drop in sessions this week for local people to find out more about the Carnwath Road option and raise any issues they might have (April 6&7, Hurlingham and Chelsea Secondary School, Peterborugh Road, 4pm-8pm).Our report on the first phase of consultation is now available on our website:thamestunnelconsulation.co.ukNick Tennant, Communications Manager, London Tideway Tunnels, Thames Water

Nick Tennant ● 5138d

A bit like Freddie Kreuger this one has returned to haunt us. Would I be wrong in thinking that Thames Water are partly choosing Fulham as a major construction site because of the way H&F Council have campaigned against the project?

Ellen Kearney ● 5159d

The Council are now complaining that DEFRA are considering referring the decision on the Thames Tunnel to the Infrastructure Planning Commission - a Quango charged with ensuring the nation's capital investment is made wisely. LBHF say the decision should be made in London, DEFRA say it is impossible to have one of the 13 Councils, i.e. LBHF scuppering the entire prokect. Simple answer is to let the London Mayor make the final decision. Boris Johnson supports the project.

Karen Cooper ● 5577d

Is there not already a system for notifying local rowing and yachting clubs that sewage has been dumped into the river? It seems extraordinary if not.

Paul Corcoran ● 5611d

I think the idea about publicising the sewage dumps into the Thames is a good one but the Super Sewer looks as though it is a non-issue now. Thames Water have recently been quoted as saying they are massively scaling back their existing investment plans and this hugely expensive project is likely to be the first to go.

Ellen Kearney ● 5625d

There was also coverage following Thames Water's recent results that when the business was privatised the UK introduced fairly lax regulations on controls on what water companies were allowed to pump into rivers to make them more attractive to investors.Whether or not EU regulations can be used to supercede local laws to protect residents against the slow destruction of their river remains to be seen.What could be done immediately is that Thames Water is obliged to publicise as widely as possible when they are dumping sewage into the Thames so river users are not caught unawares. They should have to put notices on their web site and in the press, and notify local river groups directly. It would be interesting to see if the Council Pravda would run the notifications as it would tend to discredit their opposition to the long term solution to this problem.

Karen Cooper ● 5630d

Recent press coverage has shown that we may be subject to fines from the EU due to pollution of the Thames. The Council's policy on this may be reconsidered if they are partly liable for the fine.

Sheila Prophet ● 5675d

No need to be so sanctimonious Dan - most people agree with you - even Boris Johnson who is now backing the Super Sewer project.

Karen Cooper ● 5708d

I certainly will not be signing any such nonsence. There are now salmon swimming in the Seine and our Thames is pumped full of s..t every year.These infrastructure necessities should have been done in the wasteful 1980/90's as in western Europe. At the very least it should have been done when the Tories decimated Hammersmith by building the motorway which they wanted to go through Kensington and up through Camden.Maybe it's time for you lazy lot to get out of your cars. This sewage is a national disgrace and the sewer can't come soon enough.

Dan Baldwin ● 5727d

See front page.Is anyone intending to sign this petition? On the one hand I'd agree that raw sewage shouldn't be dumped in the Thames but on the other hand no reasonable alternative appears to be being put forward.

Karen Cooper ● 5738d

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Brown privatised Thames Water - he didn't. It was privatised under Margaret Thatcher. I think that in principle this was a good thing but not enough detail was paid to the detail of the terms of privatisation or perhaps the Government at the time was aware that the asset value of the company was what was attracting investors. Either way, as you rightly point out, it is now that we are left to face the consequences.

Ellen Kearney ● 5758d

Precisely - The Gordon Brown Syndrome.

Stephen Hill ● 5758d

'It's called the Gordon Brown syndrome - sell it off cheap and repent at your leisure.'He can hardly be blamed for the sell off of Thames Water or indeed any other public utility. I don't really blame the shareholders either - they have a fiduciary responsibility to maximise their return on investment. The problem lies with the original terms of privatisation which allowed Thames to sell assets without that money being earmarked for reinvestment.

Ellen Kearney ● 5758d

The overseas investers, and I should imagine the overseas owners of Thames, are only interested in profit - the same breed as our bankers spelt witrh a w. This is what happens when you let johnny moneybags foreigner into your back yard.It's called the Gordon Brown syndrome - sell it off cheap and repent at your leisure.

Stephen Hill ● 5758d

Is it not the case that Thames Water closed down lots of sewage capacity not too long ago to develop the land and generate massive profits. Now they want to increase our bills to pay for this project. I'm not necessarily arguing its unjustified but that Thames should be footing more of the bill themselves.

Ellen Kearney ● 5759d

The dumping of tons of raw sewage into the Thames and the consequent death of thousands of fish is a timely reminder that a NIMBY attitude to this project is extremely short sighted. It's all very well blaming Thames Water but they don't make the sewage, they just have the job of disposing of it which they can't do without proper infrastructure.

Karen Cooper ● 5771d

It probably was something to do with the tides - there was an exceptionally high one the day you posted. Also the heavy rains may have led to more sewage being dumped in the river.

Andy Jones ● 5940d

Is it me or is the river a bit more smelly than usual at the moment? This might have something to do with the tides but even so there could be a worry that this will get worse as time goes on. Perhaps the Council will claim that TW are deliberately dumping more sewage into the river to persuade people to accept their plan.

Ellen Kearney ● 5947d

A very interesting read. Thank you for posting it. The Council have clearly been very cycnical in the way they have managed the news on this. I don't understand why they are spending so much time and effort in trying to block a project that they won't have to pay for and would bring substantial benefits to the local river environment.

Karen Cooper ● 5980d

Dear AllHere is an update of what happened at last Monday night's public meeting with a local newspaper article also attached:http://thecowanreport.blogspot.com/2008/11/h-councils-super-sewer-shenanigans-part_22.htmlAnd, here is an article which includes a letter from Thames Water detailing how H&F Council tried to keep Opposition politicians and the public in the dark on the 'Super Sewer' proposalshttp://thecowanreport.blogspot.com/2008/11/h-councils-super-sewer-shenanigans-part.htmlI hope you find this informative.Cllr. Stephen CowanLeader of the OppositionThe London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Stephen Cowan ● 5998d

It's an excellent summary, and I know know what "riparian" means - not a word I'd heard before.That said, something still doesn't stack up.  Thames Water are saying that the approach and plans for the project haven't yet been finalised, yet there's another article on this site saying "work begins....".I don't know why I think this, but I'm not sure whether either (or both) sides - Councils and TW are being absolutely clear with us over this.Shame I didn't hear about the meeting until yesterday, otherwise woud have been interested to attend....

Andrew Broadbent ● 6003d

The report on the front page of this site is an excellent summation of the meeting. What has now been confirmed, which was already obvious to anyone who had taken to look beyond the scaremongering tactics of the Council, is that Ravenscourt Park and Furnival Gardens are not going to be used as sites for the shaft. Now perhaps this project can be considered on its merits.

Karen Cooper ● 6003d

Meeting TONIGHT.  Hammersmith Town Hall.  7pm

Caroline MacMillan ● 6005d

Thames Water will be explaining themselves on 17th November at the Towh Hall according to the item on the home page. Hopefully people will go along with an open mind.

Karen Cooper ● 6025d

Where is the proposed location? From what I understood and according to the item currently on the front page of www.hammersmithtoday.co.uk the location of the entry shaft has yet to be decided.

Karen Cooper ● 6032d

Everyone who regularly uses the green and wants to stop this happening should start petitioning.  Furnival gardens is near to council estate.  Note how it has not been put by the private houses much further down.  This is one of the most popular greens in Hammersmith and we haven't got anything else down this end as far as I am aware.  Not for everyone anyway.  Has anyone been to Emlyn gardens?  They have a sewer nearby and the smell was atrocious.  Let's hope that this will not happen here!

Tina Pemberton ● 6034d

I am not opposed to the project, just the proposed location.

Caroline MacMillan ● 6036d

I've finally got round to listening to the Radio 4 programme on this issue recommended earlier in this thread by Rosemary.http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/cleansingthethames/I'd suggest anybody who is concerned about this issue listens to it. The problems are huge and the solution is not simple and not cheap but I think the Council are doing a great disservice to residents by trying to whip up opposition to the project.

Karen Cooper ● 6036d

Karen, hopefully ... yes ... it would rule out Furnival Gardens.

Caroline MacMillan ● 6038d

For more info see the article on the front page of this site currently.The decision on the site of the shaft isn't due to be made and will only be done so after public consultation. The man from Thames Water says that the site needs to be 2-3 football pitches in size. Wouldn't that rule out Furnival Gardens?

Karen Cooper ● 6038d

Charles, I am pleased to hear that you make your mind up without waiting for the Council or indeed any actual details from Thames Water. We don't know as yet the site of the entry tunnel or how long any related construction work will last. We do however know the damage caused by the pumping of raw sewage into the Thames. In the worst case for local residents Furnival Gardens will be a partial construction site for several years but will be restored on completion of the work. For much of this time the park would be a construction site for the planned bridge over the A4 anyway. I am at a loss to see how this is more of a concern than a catastrophic worsening of water quality in the Thames.The sentence you didn't understand refer to the time when you claimed I had stated it was a fact one of the two parks had to be dug up. In using the word 'if' I was making a conditional statement. In reality, as far as I am aware the only public statements about the possibility of these two parks might be used have come from H&F Council.

Karen Cooper ● 6048d

Ladies first

H JOHNSON ● 6048d

Agree H.  I have had a peer inside, and the grass has all gone, it's all gravelly.  On the other hand they're not digging foundations, so I'm thinking paving.  But why have the high hoardings if that's all it is?  And I presume they are not touching the trees.I think we should start a new thread.  Will you, or shall I?

Sarah Taylor ● 6048d

On a slightly different note that may not be entirely unconnected with the super sewer. Can anyone tell me what the Lovell construction site offices are for that have been erected at the river end of Queen Caroline Street ?   Curiouser and curiouser said Alice......

H JOHNSON ● 6049d

Why not listen to this Radio 4 programme from last Monday. It told me more about the need for the super sewer than anything else I had read or heard. The second programme in the series is this coming Monday and deals with the technical issues.rhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/cleansingthethames/

Rosemary Pettit ● 6050d

"A massive infrastructure project for environmental improvement".....that destroys the environment for eight years!I am glad the council opposes the destruction of green spaces in the borough but that fact does not make the argument against it stronger or weaker....I don't wait for LBHF to pronounce itself before making up my mind.And what does this sentence mean?: "When I say 'if there are no alternatives' to Furnival Gardens or Ravenscourt Park you are probably the only person who thinks I am saying there are not any alternatives."....what exactly are you saying?

Charles Lawrence ● 6050d

Charles, I don't know the Council's reasons for opposing the project. The accusation that they are ideological comes from Andrew Slaughter. I don't think it is a huge leap of faith to think that a Conservative Council would be less favourable to a massive infrastructure project for environmental improvement than others might be. The only other grounds for objection would be engineering based i.e. that the project won't achieve its stated objectives or those objectives could be achieved another way. I haven't found anything from the Council articulating this point of view.I go to Ravenscourt Park regularly and have done for decades. I would be very upset if part of it had to be set aside for building work (although it is probably too far from the river ever to be a candidate). I also walk by the river regularly as do far more Londoners than visit Ravenscourt Park. I would be more upset if a rising tide of sewage made the river unsuitable for leisure activities, killed off the wildlife and gave off a stink which made it impossible to use the river paths.When I say 'if there are no alternatives' to Furnival Gardens or Ravenscourt Park you are probably the only person who thinks I am saying there are not any alternatives. I hope there are but if it comes down to the choice of building construction in a local park for a few years and a critical and permanent deterioration in the environment around the river then I think the decision for most local people would be an easy one.

Karen Cooper ● 6051d

"If the Council is opposed to the project for ideological reasons."....what are you talking about?And is it not rather condescending to suggest that the users of these amenities who oppose these sinister plans are influenced by the council's 'ideological reasons' whatever they are? Have you been to Ravenscourt Park recently? Do you believe the people who use the park - the joggers, the mothers with toddlers, the footballers, the tennis players, the walkers, the pensioners - are angry about losing this valuable and tranquil green space 'for ideological reasons.'In any case the council is there, or should be there, to represent the people, not to dictate to it.  Then you say: "I would rather Furnivall Gardens or Ravenscourt Park were not turned into building sites but if there are no altenatives"....Who says there are no alternatives? Apart from you, I mean? When did this become a fact?

Charles Lawrence ● 6054d

Well here is an idea....why cant the  works be carried out in and around the Leg of Mutton Pond on the south bank. It is hardly a major nature reserve and I am sure that the nearby Wetlands centre could cope with any influx of wild life that may be disturbed. Alternativly,  if I am to be deprived of the facilities of Ravenscourt Park or Furnival Gardens, the vacant sites around Distillery Lane could easily be amalgamated into the newly refurbished Frank Banfield park to provide the Borough with an alternative open space while the so called super sewer is constructed.I believe this is what is called " a win win situation"  they get somewhere to build  their hole and I get a new park

H JOHNSON ● 6054d

I don't see how I am getting off the point. I don't represent any interest other than being a resident who would like to see the Thames by Hammersmith as a clean river supporting the widest possible amount of wildlife and a healthy environment for those who use it for leisure activities.If the Council is opposed to the project for ideological reasons rather than any others then it is impossible to separate party politics from this issue. I would rather Furnivall Gardens or Ravenscourt Park were not turned into building sites but if there are no altenatives then the bigger picture is that we may have to accept a temporary loss of amenity for a permanently improved river.

Karen Cooper ● 6055d

You are really getting off the point. This is NOT party political, not for me and I would suggest for many others who think that Furnival Gardens and Ravenscourt Park are wonderful amenities which should not be lost to us for eight years. Which particular interest do you represent?

Charles Lawrence ● 6057d

The alternative to not building it is thousands of homes in the borough periodically getting flooded with raw sewage, the Thames becoming an increasingly polluted river and the ruination of any chance of fish species reestablishing themselve in the river.No location has been decided on for the project as yet and the Council is just scaremongering by focusing on Furnival Gdns and Ravenscourt Park. They themselves plan digging up Furnival Gardens anyway to build a bridge over the Thames.This is what Andrew Slaughter says about the issue:"I asked a Tory insider to explain this increasingly bizarre behaviour and was told it has little to do with the issue itself – which they find dull - but is about asserting their right-wing credentials within the Tory Party. Apparently, being dismissive of Green policies and rabid anti-Europeanism are two badges of honour on the far right. All very interesting if you are into fringe politics, less comforting if you have to live in a borough run by these goons."

Karen Cooper ● 6058d

Carte blanche to Thames Water to site it where they want then? Thereby destroying for eight years one or other of two very popular, if not essential, green spaces in this densely populated borough of ours. In any case, I thought the argument for this project was far from universally accepted.

Charles Lawrence ● 6058d

Whereever this project is sited I think it is essential that it goes ahead. The argument that the river is already very clean and therefore does need it is not valid. This is because all the good work can be undone when the existing system is under pressure and raw sewage is pumped back into the Thames. We saw this a few years ago when there was heavy flooding and the overflow of sewage caused a massive loss of river life plus substantial health risks to river users. All the predictions are that this sort of flooding will happen more not less often and it takes years for the biodiversity of the river to reestablish itself after an incident like this.

Karen Cooper ● 6059d

Why don't Hammersmith & Hounslow work together and put in a compulsary purchase order for the land that Thames water sold off 4 months before they realised this super sewer was needed. I am sure they can afford to buy this back  after the massive profits they make every year and the massive profit they made from selling their own land and buildings to build flats on!!! After all Thames water are the ones at fault here. I think it is very strange that this has been a problem for over ten years and they only discovered the super sewer solution 4 months after selling their own ideal land off!!

Rob Flann ● 6074d

We do know categorically that Hammersmith and Fulham have suggested this - they are not denying it. There was previously a statement on the Council web site that said so and the deputy leader is quoted elsewhere as saying 'the only answer must be to put the entrance further up river, where previously intended, at Dukes Meadow or thereabouts. 'There has been no public disavowal of this policy so it remains an enigma how Hounslow and Hammersmith and Fulham could possibly working together. The only logical answer is that Hounslow have accepted Hammersmith and Fulham's case and are cooperating with Thames Water in building the tunnel in their borough.

Paul Corcoran ● 6074d

In my opinion all faceless organisations of this nature dump crap wherever they can

H JOHNSON ● 6074d

even if LBHF did suggest that - and you don't know - how does that mean the two boroughs are not working together?

Sarah Taylor ● 6074d

I'm not sure what point you;re trying to make.  When you say "Or is it just easier to dump the crap on the people of Hammersmith as usual and steal one of the few open spaces that we have at our disposal" are you suggesting that Thames Water have dumped crap on us before ?  If so, when and how ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 6074d

We could of course demolish the Town Hall and let them build the sewer on the resulting site in King Street. If at all necessary ( and that is highly debatable ) a new Town Hall could be built on the Embankment site overlooking Harrods or we make do with the old Fulham Town Hall.Alternatively the small area of Brook Green ( by Tesco's )could be used and I believe there is already a stream running beneath it to facilitate the sewer works )Even better  dig up the pitch at Craven Cottage .... Need I go on ?  the lawns of Fulham Palace ?...Hurlingham ?  or compulsorily purchase St Paul's playing fields across the Bridge  the people of Barnes need super sewers too don't they ?  Or is it just easier to dump the crap on the people of Hammersmith as usual and steal one of the few open spaces that we have at our disposal.

H JOHNSON ● 6078d

"I repeat. H&F and Hounslow are working together on this."Sorry, that doesn't really answer the issue that Paul raised.  Let me put two specific questions to you:1.  Have LBHF suggested to Thames Water, as reported by the media and in a comment on your blog, that the entrance to the sewer tunnel should be at Dukes Meadows, Chiswick?2.  If so, was that suggestion (a) discussed with and (b) agreed by L B Hounslow?

Richard Jennings ● 6082d

Charles, there is clearly a possible inconsistency between a claim to be working with Hounslow and the advocacy of building the Super Sewer in their borough. Even if H&F are now no longer lobbying for the site to be Dukes Meadows the way they have approached this must raise some trust issues for Hounslow.

Paul Corcoran ● 6082d

Charles, there is clearly a possible inconsistency between a claim to be working with Hounslow and the advocacy of building the Super Sewer in their borough. Even if H&F are now no longer lobbying for the site to be Dukes Meadows the way they have approached this must raise some trust issues for Hounslow.

Paul Corcoran ● 6082d

Ok, many thanks for the clarification but when you posit an alternative scenario and use the word 'claim', you are suggesting that Mr Bristow's statement that LBHF is working WITH Hounslow is not accurate.

Charles Lawrence ● 6083d

I think my question is perfectly reasonable and in no way constitutes an attack on the Councillor. If the situations were reversed and Hounslow Council had described Ravenscourt Park as the only solution and then claimed to be working with H&F wouldn't you be asking similar questions. My interest is as a resident and regular user of Dukes Meadows and someone who has supported the activities of the Dukes Meadows Trust.

Paul Corcoran ● 6083d

To Paul Corcoran....everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it would be useful to know why you are relentlessly attacking Councillor Bristow on this issue. Can you declare your interest?

Charles Lawrence ● 6083d

Does that mean that they accept your position that Dukes Meadows is the 'only solution' on this matter?

Paul Corcoran ● 6083d

I repeat.H&F and Hounslow are working together on this.  H&F are lobbying for alternatives to the super sewer 

Cllr Paul Bristow ● 6085d

"I think the whole Hammersmith v Chiswick thing is a complete red herring, stirred up by whoever writes the 'news' pages of this site.  "I would disagree. There are two issues here both of which are significant: the location of the super sewer and the attempt by Hammersmith and Fulham to get Thames Water to change their plans and build the project in a neighbouring borough. A sensible decision is unlikely if these sort of tactics are being resorted to. Thames Water have already ruled out Dukes Meadows for engineering reasons. It would have been one of the first sites they considered - the logic used by some people here that it is big and close to the river will not have escaped their notice. Therefore your Council's rather shabby attempt to get the project moved there has only served to make them look duplicitous.

Paul Corcoran ● 6085d

A agree - definitely more space at Duke's Meadow and I walk through both areas 2 or 3 times a week.

Caroline MacMillan ● 6085d

I think the whole Hammersmith v Chiswick thing is a complete red herring, stirred up by whoever writes the 'news' pages of this site.  I don't live particularly near to Furnival Gardens or Duke's Meadows but I like to visit them both.  It seems to me that there is more room at Duke's Meadows. Let's hope a sensible decision is made taking into account both the wishes of those directly affected and all other practical considerations.

Sarah Taylor ● 6087d

The best thing for now would be to register your protest on the lbhf website - an official council petition and public meeting will soon be organised.www.lbhf.gov.uk

Cllr Paul Bristow ● 6088d

Cllr Bristow, please can you advise whether there is an official petition being organised.  I'm keen to ensure that Thames Water are brought to task over their proposed choice of location and their methods of solving the sewerage problems.  I'm concerned not just for the park, but for the historic buildings that border Furnivall Gardens.  This would be disastrous if sited there.  From a previous poster's message, it appears that they have a site at hand that they could use next to their HQ - the reasons for not using that site should be questioned!

Samantha Tomlinson ● 6089d

It seems to me highly unlikely that Hounslow Council would be cooperating with Hammersmith and Fulham in an attempt to move the sewer entrance to Dukes Meadows. However, if H&F's strategy has the blessing of Hounslow then he should make that clear.

Paul Corcoran ● 6089d

I don't know the ins and outs of this but those comments appear to be a little unfair given that Mr Bristow says "H&F and Hounslow are actually working together on this"

Charles Lawrence ● 6090d

Council Bristow Maybe you can pass on to your colleges at H & F Council that there is a very willing and able lobby group around the Dukes Meadows area who are appalled at the “not in my back yard approach” adopted by your Council.When Thames Water earmarked a site in Chiswick ”Homefield Park”, we didn’t start advising them to move it on to Hammersmith.Thames Water decided to move the sewer entrance site to Hammersmith all on there own without any help from Hounslow Council.

Ian Roberts ● 6090d

H&F and Hounslow are actually working together on this.  H&F are lobbying for alternatives to the super sewer - the super sewer will actually do very little for the quality of the Thames and there are alternatives to the project in preventing raw sewage seeping into the Thames such as surface treatment.A 30 metre crater in a green and open space will be a disaster almost where ever it is - however, it is almost unthinkable in Furnivall Gardens.

Cllr Paul Bristow ● 6090d

"Why can't it be relocated directly opposite furnival gardens? There is a school with a huge amount of wasted space called the Fulham something, where a bunch of horrays play rugby once a week. Is that a necessity? To our green sunbed queen maybe. Not to me."Dan, are you referring to St Paul's school?Who is the green sunbed queen?

David James ● 6091d

The Beadon Road car Park at the bottom of Hammersmith Grove, opposite Lyric Square and behind the City Line tube station.  It's being redeveloped into (mostly) office with some retail and leisure (an Everyman cinema plus restaurants). It's been the subject to much debate and interest and controversy over the last year or so.

Frances McAllister ● 6094d

Which NCP car park is this?

Peter Bailey ● 6095d

that was a bit rude but not as much as the £12.50 an hour the vulnerable now have to pay for care.The reality is that this sewer is needed. London is only going to grow and more and more floods are forecast. It is shameful that the billions received from north sea oil and gas from 1980+ was never invested in our infrastructure or anything else. The fact that every water pipe and rail line has had to be replaced in the last 10 years is criminal negligence. Just compare us to European standards.60million cubic tones of raw sewage are pumped into the Thames every year and this is only going to increase. Please see some of the rowing websites for facts and figures.Nobody is going to want this construction on their doorsteps. Furnival gardens is lovely and in Hammersmith there are very few green spaces especially around the Broadway.Craven Cottage has wanted to relocate so why can't Thames water or the council purchase this?If there is no alternative could the council stop the ridiculous office building planned for the ncp car park and turn this space into a Park.

Dan Baldwin ● 6095d

I think Chiswick residents are quite right to be shocked and disappointed by the attitude taken by Hammersmith and Fulham Council in this matter. When the project was originally slated to be in Chiswick people did lobby against it but I cannot recall anyone suggesting alternative sites in Hammersmith.For many in Chiswick, Ravenscourt Park is their nearest big local park but now that H&F have made this issue so parochially partisan many people will be less inclined to lobby against Thames Water's plans to site it there. A very poor piece of judgment by Steven Greenhalgh who up until now from the outside appeared to be a competent leader.

Paul Corcoran ● 6096d

Sorry to have to show my ignorance, but who is the 'chubby sunbed queen' ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 6096d

This new Tory 'green' council is fighting against the reality that 60million cubic tonnes of sewage are pumped into the Thames every year on the grounds that it should be relocated to Chiswick. On the grounds that it may cost our chubby sun bed queen votes. That's green.Why can't it be relocated directly opposite furnival gardens? There is a school with a huge amount of wasted space called the Fulham something, where a bunch of horrays play rugby once a week. Is that a necessity? To our green sunbed queen maybe. Not to me.

Dan Baldwin ● 6098d

Apart from Thames water being so short sighted on this and selling their own land off. I cannot understand why this has to be on our side of the river (Hammersmith, Chiswick)  can anyone enlighten me? On the other side of the river off of Lonsdale road would be a good place for this surely no traffic as such to disrupt and as it is an old reservoir some of the digging down is already done for them?

Rob Flann ● 6098d

The latest on this super sewer is Hammersmith and Fulham Council are suggesting to Thames Water to build the entrance in Dukes Meadows in Chisiwck.As a resident living in one of the three council estates that border Dukes Meadows I will be lobbing our local Hounslow Councillors 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 the area back to it’s former glory.   

Ian Roberts ● 6098d

Now that we have a commercial property downturn, will the office development at Distillery Road ever take place. It's been off & on for at least 15 years and is still a huge empty site. It is right next to Thames Water Waste Water HQ in Chancellors Road and has the Pumping Station located on it. Can Thames Water not 'borrow' this site for 8 years to build it's tunnel? It would seem to be ideal.http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUK_enGB243GB243&q=Distillery+Road+W6+

Peter Bailey ● 6101d

If a Government Bill that takes away the power of local councils on strategic planning matters is voted through - then there is very little the council or MPs could actually do to stop it.

Cllr Paul Bristow ● 6103d

I really cannot believe that our council and local MPs will allow this to happen.

Caroline MacMillan ● 6103d

They're talking about digging up Ravenscourt Park or Furnival Gardens for EIGHT years! That's an environmental and social disaster...is there any way we can fight this? Is there any kind of action group or association? We must get all our local politicians involved + local media. I presume Thames Water's first responsibility is to its shareholders and they couldn't care less about the effect their plans will have on the residents of Hammersmith (ie, they were happy enough to sell the pump house nearby...they say the super sewer issue came up four months after that sale....does that not demonstate their lack of forward planning, lack of competence, lust for profits and total lack of social responsibility?)

Charles Lawrence ● 6105d

Losing Furnivall Gardens would be a disaster for local dog owners. Where could they take their dogs to go to the toilet?

David James ● 6119d

it's a real pity Thames Water didn't plan this before they sold off their own land for flats and huge profit less than half a mile away between the A4 and the river with good access for heavy vehicles!!!

Rob Flann ● 6120d

This would be a nightmare - the council will do everything we can to oppose this.Hammersmith & Fulham is the wrong place for the tunnel.  Especially when you consider the fact that this entrance is for the motorised equipment that will dig the tunnel.  It should be up stream of existing storm/sewage drains and the last one is in Hounslow.  Furnivall Gardens makes no sense on a practical level as well as all the reasons for not losing a precious green space.

Cllr Paul Bristow ● 6120d

I am completely against loosing a precious open space even for period when this monstrous structure is being installed.  The Thames Path through Furnival Gardens, and the garden itself, is used by hundreds of people every week and it would be a disaster to have to divert to the pavements alongside the busy A4.

Caroline MacMillan ● 6120d

And if you consider what an absolute shoddy shambles the Thames Water work to replace the Victorian pipes has been to date, I don't think they are capable of running any large project.  In our road, the replacement of the pipes ran approximately twice as long as it was supposed to, and then they had to come back and do some bits again.

Sarah Taylor ● 6122d

It's not obvious to me that there will be "a disaster in terms of traffic management" if the tunnel entry point is in Furnival Gardens.  Most of the materials should come and go by barge on the Thames, so I wouldn't expect a continual flow of trucks to the site for 8 years.  Surely the main impact will be the loss of this valuable green open space for that period, and probably a diversion of the Thames Path too.The site previously chosen was Homefield Recreation Ground in Chiswick, or its detached southern piece that was left isolated when the A4 was built.  I suspect the problem with those sites was the presence of a continuous line of buildings (many of them listed) between there and the river.  The alternative of Dukes Meadows, mentioned by Councillor Botterill but not previously part of Thames Water's plans, would involve a long section of extra tunnel just to reach the point at which the tunnel becomes useful.

Richard Jennings ● 6124d