Forum Topic

Please consider our wrong-headed planning policies: covering over the ground and removing soil!!Although it is not Government policy we need to reverse or at least slow down the present policy of "build, build, build" in London. The infill and "improvement" of properties in London continues unabated and increases day by day the run-off of rain into sewers and the risk of flooding as rain is not allowed to soak into the ground locally as it used to be.The front garden which an owner-occupier concretes over to provide off-street parking and the excavated basement means less grass and less soil to absorb rain water.Multi-storey tower blocks have deep excavated foundations and concrete rafts to support the structure above, but less soil beneath to absorb the rain.The accelerating construction boom in London in the last 100 years has caused a very significant loss of (1) the natural soil surface and (2) the volume of soil underneath buildings to absorb rain water. The water table sinks, the rain water ends up in the drainage and river system, and the overall effect is to remove rain water from the natural environment where it belongs.Do we really want a parched and flooding Thames Valley? That is the direction in which we are heading.The National Trust has repeatedly published reports about poor water management in the UK. The most recent report from a coalition of environmental charities called "Blueprint for Water" which includes the NT and RSPB can be found here:  http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/Blueprint_scorecard_pressrelease_6Nov12.pdfI note that "Blueprint for Water" does not have on its board any local authorities, district councils, the GLA or the urban planning profession, yet their planning decisions have an extremely important impact on water management.The problems in London are only the most acute form of the same disease.

Una Hodgkins ● 4545d

I can reply to you at length, but if you want to understand the situation regarding Thames Water's push to construct a tunnel which has limited benefit, take a little time to look at the counter argument. This blog is worth a read. http://thameswaterisshite.blogspot.co.uk/ Clean Thames now and Always is a think tank researching alternatives to TW's £4bn++ "super sewer" project (full figure, including operation, maintenance costs and TW's profit margin is closer to £12bn).  We have recently launched a petition to stop it: http://bit.ly/stopSS .Did you know that this is TW's most ambitious ploy yet to siphon money from the UK cash cow - reaching to all taxpayer thanks to provision of Water Industry "Financial Assistance" act 2012.Have you heard how Macquarie have been hiking TW's debt in order to pay themselves dividends above profit, whilst dodging UK tax thanks to shrewd Cayman Islands incorporation: http://bit.ly/TW_tax . The worst part is that the govt is well aware ( http://bit.ly/TWdebt ) and just turning a blind eye...And who says that that the Thames Tunnel will be able to cope with London's rainfall at a time of climate change.  Other cities who have used this solution are reporting that it is not 100% effective and ruinously expensive. Cities that have opted for green infrastructure are reporting that it works and has numerous cost/benefits including an environmentally friendly city in which to live. So do we learn from working examples, or blindly swallow Thames Water propaganda? They do admit in small print that there will be 4 sewage spills a year once the tunnel is constructed, and it will do nothing for local flooding in London. We also don't yet have an up-to-date cost for the construction anbd operation/maintenance of the tunnel.  And they want to start taking the money from our accounts starting next year.  We are giving them an open cheque because once it starts it will be deemed too big to fail and there will be no way that we can protest at the cost!

Ann Rosenberg ● 4556d

The Thames Tunnel is nothing to do with sewage.  Its to deal with London's rainwater runoff which can't soak into the ground and replenish the natural aquifers which guard against drought. London has lost most of its green spaces over he years, which is why the rainwater floods into the sewers.The water that floods into the river is 95% rainwater and 5% sewage.  The real damage to the river is when thames Water's the treatment works overflow and thousands of tons of sewage and chemicals enter the river the kill and the fish. Once the Lee Tunnel is completed sometime next year, the volume of sewage will be reduced from about 39 thousand tons to 18 thousand tons.  This is easily dealt with.  The Thames Tunnel will not stop local London flooding, will not harvest rainwater at a time of climate change and cost every Thames Water customer £80 a year on top of their water bills.  This represents  a pint of milk and 2 loaves of bread a week for a pensioners for a year.  It seems that £4bn+ construction cost is a unrealistic price to pay when operation and maintenance will take this figure up to about £12bn.  London annual rainfall is 27 inches a year.  Where's the cost/benefit?  London's rainwater problem can be solved cheaply with planting more greenery and trees and surfacing roads incrementally with permeable asphalt and were possible everyone who can, installing a water butt.  New buildings could utilise grey water.  London would be an environmentally healthy city.  Thames Water present a one-sided picture to its advantage.  The Thames Tunnel will be a major asset owned totally by this private utility company. Its shareholders are overseas so the dividends, paid by you and me, will go outside the UK. It is also uninsurable, so the Treasury has underwritten it - that's taxpayers money.If you want to know more go to www.cleanthames.org

Ann Rosenberg ● 4557d