Took a break from campaigning yesterday afternoon to give a lift to Murad Qureshi (GLA Labour lead on Environment issues) to Mogden's open day. Never have I seen so many PR people in one place - well certainly not at Modgen which seems to have about 3 people working there on a normal day. Full info marquee and bus trip round the site.
Although I thought I had a good grasp of how our sewage is treated, I now understand a lot better. Those who live with the stench from the works will ask - did we do the right thing to grant planning permission to the extension? Well yesterday didn't change my view. Tens of millions have been spent on smell reduction, the expenditure came about after Ann Keen and I brought then Environment Minister Larry Whitty to the site around 2003, when the smell and mosquitoes were unbearable.
There is still the issue of the remaining uncovered storm tanks - used for storage of raw sewage when surges of run-off mean the works cannot handle the volume. With the extension to the works agreed, residents will have to wait until 2013 for the old storm tanks to be used less than 6 times a year. And if they are needed more often - the planning condition means they will have to be covered. If we had refused permission to TW they would not have been able to expand the capacity of the site, and residents would have suffered indefinitely, or TW would have got their permission on appeal with much weaker conditions imposed.
Ruth, there is a danger that if you keep saying this you are going to start to believe it.
ReplyDeleteThe fact which you and our officers continually ignore is that Thames Water has the resources to cover these tanks already, and simply opts not to use them. They told SDC that they needed OFWAT's permission to cover the storm tanks. This was a lie. Our officers at the meeting knew it was a lie but kept schtumm. Go figure.
Thames have already been awarded some £45m of customers' money by OFWAT to cover these tanks. They spent £30m not covering them and pocketed the balance. They were able to do this because the local authority gave them the thumbs-up. Now you are asking residents to trust them to make this latest project work, and work on time. Those of us who have been dealing with Thames for years at the sharp end know it won't happen.
I honestly believe there is a default in your party which assumes that residents do not know what they are talking about or what they are doing. This may serve a purpose in making yourself and your colleagues feel enlightened and special, but it also serves to insulate you from the rich vein of talent and knowledge that exists outside the very small pond in which you swim. MRAG are experts in this field and possess intricate subject knowledge which our officers, and the politicians who sit on SDC, simply do not have.
Ruth, I expected you and your colleagues to support the expansion. I was more disappointed by the actions of others. Now, with the election campaign in full swing, we are treated to the nauseating but thoroughly predictable spectacle of politicians who have sold residents out falling over each other to tell their victims what they are doing to compel Thames Water to honour their statutory obligations to the neighbouring community. It is pure and utter cant Ruth and I'm afraid you know it.
Phil
ReplyDeleteMRAG's involvement with us in the run-up to the planning decision was not particularly helpful. They demanded that we defer deciding the application until the outcome of the legal proceedings. Anyone with any knowledge of the planning system knows that that not only doesn't help, it allows the applicant to go straight to appeal on grounds of non-determination. Planning operates on a different plane from common law. If the legal case is successful, it could well impact on TWs plans, but it doesn't work the other way round.
MRAG did not engage on discussion about conditions (which is normal practice if you are objecting to a complex and major planning application) and one that I advised many community groups on when I worked at Planning Aid. You're not selling out by doing so - if anything you are strengthening your case and assisting in better quality decision-making, really strong and reasonable conditions can help to lead to refusal, or the applicant pulling out - although I don't think that will happen here.
Phil MRAG may know the statuary law on nuisance and smell, but they do not seem to be that well versed or advised on the Town Planning system. As a professional planner, and one who has spent 25 years advising community groups and sitting on planning committees - I do think I have a "rich vein of talent and knowledge" on planning.
And on the storm tanks - TW's line is - there's not point in spending £xm on covering the tanks that are going to be redundant when the expansion goes on-line in 2013. But if they are wrong then they'll cover the old one. OK - I know you'll say don't believe TW - and I'm well aware that they are unaccountable, arrogant, and completely insensitive to local residents. But I frankly do not see any other alternatives that will bring relief to local people than to expand the capacity of Mogden so that it can process the massively increased volumes of sewage and surface run-off generated by North West London. If MRAG thought there was an alternative, they should have been engaging with the LA a very long time ago on other solutions. MRAG have over the years spent a lot of time being cross with politicians of all parties, but very little in actually engaging us in solutions.