Thames Tideway Tunnel

Representations received regarding Thames Tideway Tunnel

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Thames Tideway Tunnel and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
CGL Rail
"Representation to be submitted at later date if agreement not reached with Thames Water"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Docklands Light Railway
"Representation to follow if agreement not reached with Thames Water "
Members of the Public/Businesses
George S Baldwin
"I must take issue in the strongest possible terms with Thames Water choosing King Edward Memorial Park (KEMP) as its chosen local access point for this project. KEMP is the only sizeable, cultivated green space in the area. It is the only green space between Tower Bridge and Canary Wharf and so provides a large number of local residents with direct access to the Thames, and associated respite from traffic noise and pollution. The sports facilities, children's playground and lawns create a vital meeting place for local residents from different cultures and communities, and its loss for the three-plus years of construction would be felt by a large and vocal community who live in an area with extremely limited access to greenery compared to other parts of London. Locals' collective love for the part has been demonstrated repeatedly, not least by winning a popular vote for the Queen Elizabeth II Green Fields Challenge, winning more votes than any other green space in the UK. If there were no logical alternative, I would not lodge an objection to the use of KEMP. But a cost-effective, viable alternative does exist, yards away, by way of an industrial estate on Heckford Street diagonally opposite. In using this brownfield site in place of the KEMP's greenfield site, the relocation of these few warehouse businesses would have a much more limited impact on the community's health, fitness, wellbeing and enjoyment of their neighbourhood than the use of KEMP for the same purpose, but, despite the continued petitions of local residents, Thames Water has refused to propose this alternative site. With over 10,500 signatures listed on a petition to this effect, and over 1,450 objections lodged during the consultation, the weight of local opinion on this issue must not be ignored any longer. Please note that I live immediately opposite Heckford Street, nearer to it than KEMP in fact. I also travel regularly by car on the Highway. I am therefore better placed than most to state unequivocally that I would welcome any increase in noise and congestion resulting from the choice of Heckford Street for the construction site rather than KEMP, though I suspect any difference would ultimately be marginal (Thames Water have at last, after much petitioning, admitted themselves that the relative impact on traffic (and thus noise) of the two options is broadly identical, ceteris paribus). The benefit to the local population in continued and uninterrupted access to the only green space in the local area, however, cannot be disputed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gordon Macdonald
"I have a concern that the cost of the project may impact adversely my bills for water / sewage"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laurence Corbett
"I am worried about the tunnelling near or under my house"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Prakash Pallathadka Kumar
"I am a subsidiary owner of the aforementioned property which may potentially be affected by your Thames Tideway Tunnel Project, Planning Inspectorate no. WW010001. In the event that the project will impact on the building or on the value of the property, we would like prompt notification and an appropriate compensation as for the rest of the subsidiary owners. Thank you. Yours Sincerely, Prakash Pallathadka Kumar Nagarathna Prakash Kumar"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Building (Building )
"- Work for the UK construction sector - Effects on employment across the UK - Environmental issues and greening of the river thames "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Woolf
"I am editor of the website www.bluegreenuk.com. Within this site is a growing evidence base of why we, the Blue Green Independent Expert Team, believe the current scheme is unlawful in that it has not applied Best Technical Knowledge with respect to alternative options to dealing with the Thames pollution. An opportunity may be lost if the current mono-solution approach is not assimilated in conjunction with a whole spectrum of other issues impacting Londoners such as urban heat island effects and air pollution as well as flood and drought. In terms of required infrastructure flexible enough to adapt to climate change and increased demand from Londoners (or reduced with future technical developments?), we believe a Blue + Green + Grey masterplan study for London is required to determine the best value as part of a multi-functional solution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Guy Lindsay-Watson
"I wish only to state that I am the owner of Houseboat Reiger G moored under a long term licence until 2051 from Her Majesties Crown Estates and the Port of London Authority at Nine Elms Pier, Kirtling St, London SW8 5PZ and that this planned development has directly caused the blocking of planning permission given to us to expand the jetty so the sooner TT can complete things the happier I will be. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Garrett
"From Jane Caroline Garrett My Reference; 25386 Vicinity of Work Nos 23a,23b and 23c Shaft at Greenwich Pumping Station, site works at Greenwich Pumping Station ( connection tunnel drive works ) and site works at Greenwich Pumping Station ( CSO interception works ) I own an apartment in     ,   Place which overlooks the listed buildings on the existing/proposed site. I wish to register my concern and leave open my option to claim for compensation if the proposed works adversely affect my quality of life in any way whatsoever."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Martin Jamie Darke
"I am content with the application subject to the outcome of continuing discussions with Nine Elms Pier Ltd of which I am a director and shareholder."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Dyer
"This is an interesting project that will have impacts for all those living and working in London and I would like to register my interest to be kept informed about this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon James
"I am requesting that project provides an unlimited indemnity insurance against any possible damage to Old Sun Wharf as a result of the project, since it sits directly above the subsoil being acquired there is a risk of subsidence that could occur at any time in the future. There also needs to a full and visual presentation of the realistic disturbance due to the works, for example how large will the digging machinery be and how much obstruction to river views will there be, what will the duration of the works be in the area, and what are the noise levels in decibels likely to be, the plans still miss out some important detailed information for an owner to make a fully informed decision."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Zoe Vanderwolk
"I am registering as an owner/occupier of the   , a houseboat moored on a tenancy at Nine Elms Pier, and as a potential claimant under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. I am particularly concerned about the real impact to amenity over the proposed six years of construction as well as any need for relocation (whether temporary or permanent). Our main concerns relating to the process of construction are excess wash from barge movements carrying excavated materials; emissions, noise and dust from the construction works; and works taking place at night and on weekends outside of the designated hours. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Stuart Adams
"The application runs to many many pages and I have not had time to go through it all yet but wish to reserve the right to make a representation later on. In general I am concerned about the impact to my environment in terms of, inter allia, noise, pollution, increased traffic, structural damage to my property and so on."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward Pailthorpe
"I object to this plan. It will create transport disruption, noise & smell. No real mention has been made of the smell that will be caused by this process. It will also destroy the appeal of a local park (King Edward Memorial Park) in a highly built-up area, enjoyed by very many people. I wonder what King Edward himself might have made of the mess that will be made of the park?! After all the good progress that has been made in encouraging development in East London (remember the Olympics?), this is a very backward step and will discourage people from the area for several years. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Bartlett
"to be completed at a later date -- subsequent to the Planning Inspectorate's consultation process commencing 2 May 2013"
Members of the Public/Businesses
London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies (London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies)
"The sewer tunnel may not be necessary if sustainable urban drainage, urban greening, retention of storm water and permeable surfaces were to be introduced in parts of London contributing most to the sewer overflows. If the tunnel is approved, the cost of it should not be carried by water bill payers. The tunnel southwards from the Acton Storm Tanks must be constructed so that there will be no further sewage escape after its completion into the allotments running between Abinger Road, W4, and Emlyn Road, W6. The storm tanks at Acton must be closed permanently after the tunnel construction and its design must make that possible. Provision must be made at the Acton Thames Water site or in the park to the north of The Vale, W3, for interception of flows for any future project related to diversion of flows from other sewers related to basement flooding in Fulham and Chelsea. There should be no further work done at the Acton site for such projects. The design of the odour prevention at the Acton site must be capable of preventing smells to the adjacent blocks of flats in the direction of the prevailing wind."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Davies
"I live on houseboat '   ' moored on the upstream side of Putney Pier and have done so for the last 9 years. I rent off Livetts Launches and have a relevant, current agreement in place with them. I am registering my position with regard to this proposed development. I believe that the building of the downshaft will cause me huge inconvenience. The noise, vibration and disruption to the pier will, I believe prove impossible for me to live here, at my permanent address, whilst the work is being carried out. This is aside from the parking and street disruption that will be caused. I would like my boat to be moved and moored at a nearby, alternative position for the duration of the proposed work and fully expect the mooring fee to be paid for out of any compensation fund that is available. I would hope to return to Putney Pier at the cessation of the work. The inconvenience of this will be detrimental to my standard of living for the intended 5 years of construction and I fully expect to be paid for this inconvenience."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thomas Martin Blaiklock
"I am a customer of Thames Water, a private sector monopoly supplier of water services. I am an infrastructure project finance banker with over 30 years experience in the UK and internationally. I have also undertaken more than 100 2-3 day Training Courses on this topic for Governments and banks around the World over the last 5 years. Over the last 5 years I have studied closely the financial performance of Thames Water and other UK water utilities since Year 2000. Hence, my interest in the Tunnel. I am particularly concerned in this proposal because:- (a) the cost. I understand the estimated cost is around £4bn (2011 prices), giving £5bn today. If you add interest payable during the 4-5 year construction period, then the funding needed will be around £6 - 7bn. (b) Thames' current Balance Sheet is highly leveraged. They are not strong financially. Much of this is due to shareholders paying too high dividends over the last 10-12 years. The rate of return for investors has been higher than NAO would normally expect. (c) Thames would probably only be able to raise the funding needed if they structured the Tunnel project as £3bn new equity and £4bn of debt in round numbers. Given Thames financial weakness, this seems unlikely to happen. (d) £7bn is a lot of money to put at risk in one project, in which you will not be able to judge success for 5-7 years. The financial risk is too high (& in the end the customer pays!). (e) the Tunnel will bring only limited employment benefits. The UK does not make tunnelling machines! (f) the financially lower risk option is to forget the Tunnel and implement SUDS. This can be implemented as a series of (lower risk) projects, spread over a number of years and provide more UK employment opportunities. It also provides more immediate results. Thames should be able to fund that, provided shareholders are constrained by OFWAT. Note: under Condition F of their Licence, Thames has a responsibility to fund and manage wastewater investments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Timothy Leone Ganado
"Need to review"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Dolan
"The current plan to provide a super sewer which is sunk under the foreshore of the Thames is a good idea however Thames should also encourage each homeowner to use less water and create natural run off of water into the ground and rainwater and grey water recycling. These measures which would create less of a need for the super sewer but we should act now to create a clean method of dealing with excess sewage to ensure non enters the Thames. This project affords all communities an opportunity to create better enviroments and top class innovative architecture where the foreshore and embankments are affected. I would urge Thames Water to get involved on a local level with informed individuals and those councillors who are able to offer creative advice. The Thames plan has not been well thought out in regard to supply of the sites and carry out the works. The river should be used as much as possible to house offices, storage of materials and working platforms, this will impact less on all communities. This point is one of the strongest objections from most people and therefore my comments will be restricted to this. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gregory Choubana
"I confirm I have read and understood the text for the submission of my representation. I am applying as my understanding is that the work which will be carried out could have a direct life on my day to day life as I am renting a flat on a land which will be affected. I want to be kept informed and be able participate in any debate or discussion regarding issues or problems which will affect my quality of life."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nancy Cooper
"There is a credible and viable alternative to using the park on the brownfield Heckford site which would cause far less impact on the local community and I believe this sight should be used instead of the park. The park is the only park in the area and is much used but especially needed for those who have poor health or who are trying to regain their health after illness. I use the park to relax in, to exercise in and to study in. Using the park as a construction site would take that away for years as the noise and disruption caused would negate the enjoyment and purpose of visiting a park and would leave a legacy of ventilating shafts, a road and a concrete carbuncle on the front. This is needless when there is an alternative. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bill Ambrose
"I fundamentally disagree with the entire proposal for the siting of an access tunnel at the Deptford Location (in the green space between the church and primary school. I am opposed to this for the following reasons : 1. The site is of nature conservation importance, as stated by Lewisham Council. 2. Loss of a critically important haven of peace, quiet and a green space right in the hub of the areas which defines Deptford, namely the high street. 3. Close to the Library and swimming pool, both newly erected in order to try and regenerate the area.. hence regeneration is detrimentally affected. 4. Loss of trees and a valuable green space 5. Too close to two local primary schools. Noise, Dust and HGV traffic will have a profound affect on pupils for the duration (3 - 4 years) of construction. 6. Closure of the bus lane on the already congested road will have a significant effect on workers getting to and from work during busy periods. 7. The site is directly opposite the church, a grade one listed building. probably the single most impressive building in the area. It will also obviously affect users of the church. 8. Major congestion will end up directly affecting the high street due to people using the area as a cut through to avoid jams etc. 9. Parking locally will be affected which will have a knock on effect on many local residents (much of the parking on residential streets in the area is free, so these areas will be used instead pushing the parking problems further into other ares) 10. The 'cut through' after the church has shut it's gates will no longer be usable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Cohen
"I own a flat nearby on Deptford high street and object to; * the disturbance caused by construction works * any future disturbances caused by operation and maintenance of the facility * devaluation of my property * the loss of public green space * the 'eye-sore' nature of this facility when situated next to a historic church * disturbance caused by construction and operation to the adjacent school * infringement of community values to use, maintain and preserve the local area * any other inconvenience or detriment that may arise from the installation and operation of this facility, for example, bad smells."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Roberts
"Re. Protection measures We live at   ,   ,     . According to your plans the proposed works on Barn Elm Fields will be directly outside our bedroom windows. I am a shift worker (paramedic), i also have two school age children and a partner with irregular hours seven days a week and would obviously be disturbed by any works in this area. I need to know the extent of these planned works ie. 24 hrs working, flood lit, noise levels, start and finish dates. Also what protective measures you are prepared to put in place to assure that our living situation does not become impossible. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James West
"I support the application for the long term benefit of London and its citizens based on the evidence of the public consultation and Section 48 publicity. I have no specific comments, but wish to be kept informed of updates and meetings so I can actively support the proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Wright
"KEMP was given to the people for perpetuity. KEMP is the only green space in a heavily overpopulated area. The alternative site was never properly considered by TW, it was the KEMP of nothing. Please keep our park as decreed - For the people forever!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Churly
"I disagree with the current plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impact to my local community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Park and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Sofoluke
"No specific comments"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Croft
"The scale and height of the tower are inappropriate for the area, and will permanently damage one of the views of a long stretch of the Thames in both directions. Although advised not, there are bound to be strong smells from the funnel and as such by an area for children and a park would make this area unusuable. Victorian sewers have last 100s of year and this plan should be thought in the same way, so development is suitable for the next 100 years, and having waste funnels by the Thames is not, there are PLENTY of brownfield sites close by, of which is local firms and housing had to pay an extra contribution towards to be used I am sure that they would however the cost to use should be neutral compared to current site. Development should be the long term future, to benefit all, not what allows the development to be done as quick as possible. Objections were very strong to this plan and weaker in other ares however the plans were changed in the other areas - why is that, all communities should be treated in an equal and fair way and as such this planned site would have been changed before others. CURRENT PLANS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, all other options should be used over and above this which should have been the last option suggested."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeffrey Box
"The application will take away one of the extremely rare green areas on the Thames in this area which is used for recreation and leisure by young and old alike and has done so for many years as is self-evident from the name. It is also used as a well-used route between the east and west alongside the river. There are alternative brown field sites within a few hundred metres which would serve equally well and not on Thames Water's own submission not cost any more and certainly not affect amenities in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Josephine Boyd
"I don’t agree with the plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Park and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margarette Lincoln
"I disagree with proposals that affect Deptford Church Street. The contruction would: -have a negative effect on the education of pupils in an adajacent primary school -disrupt traffic on a busy road -damage local businesses in an area that is already struggling to maintain an historic -market and high street shops -adversely effect a listed historic church. I do not believe the most suitable option has been chosen for this area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin C Grierson
"Interference to access to my workshop building which only has access directly onto Canham Road opposite the proposed entrance to the Acton Storm tanks site. Proposed suspension of parking, both in the road and in our adjoining car park for which I have a lease on two parking spaces. The plans seem to show suspension of parking here also."
Members of the Public/Businesses
National Small-bore Rifle Association (National Small-bore Rifle Association)
"This project will deprive the National Small-bore Rifle Association (NSRA) of the use of its Lord Wakefield Range currently used by several Rifle Clubs. The Lord Wakefield Range is located adjacent to Bazalgette Walk / Paul's Walk close to Blackfriars Underpass. This will prevent the use of this 'Sport For All' facility to all members of those clubs and members of the NSRA. The NSRA will be deprived of the income made from the fees paid by those clubs"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicole Wilcock
"King Edward Memorial Park is the only significant open space in the area. It is used and loved by all residents in Wapping and Shadwell. There is an alternative brownfield site that would save our park. Please consider this viable alternative."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Sheldon
"I don’t agree with the plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Park and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. The park is one of the only greenspaces in the local area and is very small already - it is an important part of our community where many social events and family events take place and our children and families enjoy just as general use as a park aswell. Why spoil this highly utilised and valued area when there is a completely viable alternative that wont affect greenspace. Please dont reduce our greenspace in the city it is so valued by our local community. In this case where there is an alternative it is just not necessary. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Vale Private Retirement Trust (The Vale Private Retirement Trust)
"Book of reference Plot Number:     British Grove Occupier reference:   The proposed tunnel's Centreline of Work No. 1a and Limits of deviation for Work No. 1a are within or in very close proximity to the piled foundations of British Grove Sound Recording Studios. NOTE:The depth of the piles vary between 16 and 24m. The soffit of the tunnel as shown is shallower than at least obne of the existing piles and within the pressure bulb of a number of other existing piles! The recording facility relies on lack of noise and vibrations percolating the structure and entering the recording studios. Whilst these have been isolated with resiliant pads the vibrations and noise during construction of the tunnel in close proximity may disrupt the day-to-day operation of the studios."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tony Roome
"My main concern with the application is with the access to the development sites - principally to the King Edward Memorial Park, though similar concerns are relevant at other riverside sites. At present, access for heavy plant, materials and waste removal is largely by road. Even where spoil removal is said to be by water, there is no guarantee that this will happen. We only need to look at the example of the Olympic Park construction to see that such undertakings are worthless. If the use of river transport, for all except light vehicle access, was included as a contract condition, then: a) East London roads would not continue to suffer the damage which large numbers of heavy lorry movements create (again we have the Olympic experience) b) Interruption to the normal use of the Park would be minimised c) The whole project would be more environmentally-friendly with a massive reduction in heavy lorry movements in the area. Both Blackfriars Railway Bridge/Station, and Crossrail are examples of projects where a large proportion of heavy goods and spoil movement was by river – the Thames Tunnel project needs to be even stricter in forcing traffic off our roads and on to the river. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Sany
"It will be impossible for us residents immediately surrounding this site to live in peace and quiet for years if permission is granted for work 24 hours a day 7 days a week for year after year. When barges pull up next to the site they are very noisy - even workers talking to each other (often shouting at each other) is loud enough to wake us up in the summer at 3am. We have experienced it when Berkley were demolishing the Chambers Wharf."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs. Leeda Sany
"I'm a registered disabled and when Berkley were demolishing the Chambers Wharf, my sleep pattern was disrupted so much that it adversely affected my health. The barges coming and going in the middle of night, other boats coming and going and workers shouting at each other at the top of their voice at 2 or 3 am kept me up most of the nights. This site is within a stone throw of Tower bridge the most important tourist attraction site in London. Does it really make sense to turn the centre of London into a massive building site for 7 years? Could they not start drilling for this tunnel outside of central London instead? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Boris Konoshenko
"This application may cause disturbance, noise, dirt, access problems to both Adriatic Building and Ionian building, reducing value for owners and tenants"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fiona Paterson
"As I own   Stockhurst Close, Putney, SW15 1NB which will be overlooking part of the proposed Barn Elms development along Beverly Brook, I have concerns about the impact any works and subsequent operation of the tunnel may have on said property. The outlook is quiet and idyllic and I feel that the works will be detrimental to the residents of Stockhurst Close in terms of noise, privacy and property value, particularly if the works are to take a number of years to complete. I also have concerns that the issue of noise, privacy and property value may continue once work is completed if the landscaping and noise suppression is inadequate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Dunbar
"I want to express my complete objection to the use of the Carnwarth Road/Broomhouse area of Fulham for the siting of a major construction site in relation to the Thames Tunnel. This part of Fulham is now almost entirely residential, with many schools and young families and the noise, traffic and construction pollution that would arise from the construction site would be devastating for young people in this area. The riverbank in the south of Fulham is an area being regenerated by the local council and is no longer an industrial brown-field site as Thames Water's materials suggest. The use of this area for the construction site would severely restrict such regeneration for a whole generation. There are numerous other areas which are not heavily populated (such as the wet lands in Barn Elms) which are far better suited to this type of construction. I will take all possible legal steps in order to prevent the proposed construction in south Fulham and ask that the Planning Inspectorate direct Thames Water to use a less residential area for this construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Conney
"I beleive that the area in Deptford Church St, a proposed site for an access shaft for the Tideway Tunnel is not the best site in the area for such work. Areas directly affected include a grade 1 listed church, a primary school as well as local businesses and would be against the sprit of the consevation area. The site also includes on of the few "green" amenity areas in the centre of a deprived inner-city area. It also affects the local authority (Lewisham) plan for the area. During the construction phase there will be significant disruption to Deptford Church St, an important transport link affecting both Deptford and Greenwich. Other sites are available in the area which could make use of river transport for the removal of spoil and the delivery of constrution material and plant. On this basis I object to the current plans for Deptford Church St site as one of the access shafts. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Old Chiswick Protection Society (The Old Chiswick Protection Society)
"Whilst the Old Chiswick Protection Society does not own land or interests in land which may be affected it may well be that some of it's members do hold such ownerships. It is appreciated that they may wish to make representations on their own behalf. The Society holds a watching brief in respect of all its members and with this in mind we wish to be recorded as an interested party"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Timothy Payne
"This application may cause disturbance, noise, dirt, access problems to both Adriatic Building and Ionian building, reducing value for owners and tenants"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Harbledown Road Residents Association (Harbledown Road Residents Association)
"I wish to submit this at a later date."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Harris
"1.The scheme is unnecessary and imposes an unnecessary burden on householders 2Alternatively Thames Water are not Fit and Proper persons to carry it out. 3There has not been complete disclosure. 4.There is a security risk in that Thames Water has recently sold shares to The Chinese Sovereign fund."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vincent Keaveny
"As a resident of south Fulahm I express my strong objections to Thames Water's proposed "super sewer" tunnel and, particular, the consideration of Carnwarth Road, SW6 as a major access point for drilling work. I do not believe that anything that I have yet seen or read indicates that a compelling case has been made for the super sewer on environmental or economic grounds. I believe that the environmental benefits that have been identified do not justify the enormous cost of the project and that the level of costs that will be borne by Thames Water customers for years to come demands that the project be re-evaluated before any further work is undertaken on it. In relation to the possible selection of Carnwarth Road as an access point, the site has been identified by the company almost as an afterthought only at phase 2 in the cosultation process. The south Fulham area is not the semi-industrial environment of 30 or 40 years ago. It is now a highly residential area, with a concentration of schools serving a wide area of west and south-west London. A number of additional residential developments are already under development or in advanced planning states in the immediate vicinity of Carnwarth Road. This development would have a very serious detrimental effect on the quality of life, well being and health of many local residents and school children. It would significantly delay, and possibly prevent, the completion of the urban regeneration of the south Fulham waterside. There is already significant traffic congestion in the Wandsworth Bridge area; the planning focus should be on freeing up the roads for local residents, not on imposing years of heavy construction traffic on a tight grid of small roads close to Wandsworth Bridge that will in turn have a serious adverse impact on major traffic routes in south-west London. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Jones
"I live on a street that will be overlooking the work of a connection site for the sewer. It will mean 3-6 years of excavation, construction misery and disruption in a residential conservation area. There are no plans to take spoil away on the river which I believe there should be. Fulham Palace Road is already congested. It is the wrong place to put pressure on an already congested area and a site across the river would have been more suitable and should have been chosen. There is already a lot of activity from the site chosen at the end of Chancellors Road with a large new development and this will only add to the disruption in this residential area. I also do not believe that enough money has been spent looking at alternative more green choices for the treatment of run offs and until such time as a viable alternative is either accepted or rejected with the right amount of scrutiny, then I believe this scheme is misguided. This scheme offers no practical remedies for the real threat of the future to our area i.e. flooding. What we really need is potential flood relief for those of in the flood plane coupled in with any plan that is going forward. That is the real threat in the future with melting ice caps and oceans rising and weather changing. This scheme which we have to pay for gives us nothing back and is a waste of time and money as it does not incorporate any practical flood relief which would have been welcomed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
G.Shaw
"There are credible non -residential alternatives to Chambers Wharf . Seven years of construction affecting thousands of residents is unacceptable. Sewage smells ,noise \dust and traffic congestion will destroy the quality of life. 24/7 construction for three years will devastate our livelihoods and community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Anthony Williams
"I consider that the Thames Tunnel is not the best solution to the infrequent overflows, which are primarily a rainwater problem and not a sewage problem. It is also excessively costly and a burden on all Thames Water customers. Further, the planning application is desinged to over-ride and over-rule local planning policies and the local planning process, to the detriment of thousands of people. The environmental impact on the communities that would be affected both by the construction and legacy has been ignored."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Charles Blennerhassett
"My mother and I both have property nearby and think that this will have an adverse effect on our lives and our homes and property prices in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Unity Harvey
"I believe that the sewer project is designed to manage the sewage from London efficiently for the next one hundred years. The Environment Agency also have plans to manage projected flood water from the River Thames for the next one hundred years but I believe that the two plans do not lie easily and efficiently together. To contain the floodwater, the Environment Agency has plans to build a new Thames Barrier and raise the banks of the River Thames by one metre. They will also need water-holding bays. Until this work is completed the land on Barn Elms and on Putney Embankment is at risk of flooding. With particular regard to the proposed CSO at Barn Elms, the land was flooded to a depth of 2 metres here in 1964 and despite the present barrier and raised bank being constructed since then, the land is once more at risk. The proposed CSO building has doors and will not be flood proof so the system will not work during a flood when it is most needed. Moreover, I contacted the Environment Agency to see if they had any plans to use Barn Elms as a water holding bay. They had no plans to use it as an overflow for Beverley Brook, not mentioning the River Thames. They added that if they needed to use it later, they would contact the then owners of the land. If the CSO is built they will not be able to use it unless a big defensive wall is built around the CSO building. Local youths often venture on to the Sports Centre to play when it is not open and I believe that they will be tempted to climb on the building, gradually vandalising it. It will be hard to water the plants in dry summers and I believe that it will become an eyesore spoiling the natural view on this Metropolitan Open Land. This is very sad, particularly as the eye is naturally drawn to this corner of the triangular shaped sports centre. I also believe that if this project does go ahead the road parallel to Queen Elizabeth Walk should be completely restored to grass land. It will lead to nowhere and maintenance vehicles could use the existing road through the centre of the sports field particularly if it is made a little wider. I believe that the best place for a replacement pavilion is where the present one is situated. It is near the entrance and is best placed for a sunny aspect. More importantly, most of the sports centre can be seen from here. I have also been told that as time goes on there is likely to be a smell emanating form the CSO that will not be nice for sports players or local Putney residents. Whilst I am in favour of the project as a whole, I am very much against siting the CSO here on Barn Elms because I believe there is a better alternative. The small but considerable amount of sewage in question comes from Putney into Barn Elms and back into the Thames via Beverley Brook. I believe it should be piped alongside Beverley Brook if necessary and then underground, maybe with manholes for access, along the Putney Embankment to the Putney CSO, never entering Barn Elms at all. There would then be no smell and I believe that it would be better to have a slightly larger disturbance at Putney CSO and not disturb any views and wildlife at Barn Elms. The pipe would not be liable to flooding once the Environment Agency one metre high wall was built. Land owners, particularly boat house owners, along the Embankment may not like the idea at first wanting to keep the low access to the river as long as possible. However the wall, with access over or through it, will eventually have to be built unless the landowners wish to rebuild their properties on stilts. I believe that, because the Metropolitan Land on Barn Elms would not be marred and the wildlife would remain undisturbed, using this route via Putney is infinitely preferable to the one chosen, especially as it would still contain the sewage if there was a flood and there would still be potential water holding bay site if it were required."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Taisiya Izhutkina
"I am a leaseholder of one of the properties under which the tunnel is going to be built (   Horseferry Road,   ). This is flat with river views and I believe that having waste water tunnel under the building will significantly reduce the property value, because the target buyers are on the higher end of the market and will prefer a next-door property that does not have the same problem. When I was buying this property in December 2012, I had no awareness of this project being planned, this was not in the drainage and water search from Thames Water (from 29 August 2012), but had I known it, I would prefer to find another flat in the neighborhood that doesn't have this problem, and I am afraid that many potential buyers will decide the same, thus making the sale lengthy and reducing the price. In addition, the consequences of the works on the structure of the building is not known, so this adds to risk of structural problems which not many buyers would be ready to take. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Diana Elisabeth Banks-Conney
"As a non-resident owner of a property that will be greatly affected by the works since the property is within 200 metres of the proposed shaft site. I am concerned as to the disruption that will be caused to local residents and the possible damage to the environment and a listed historical building. Also I am very concerned as to the possible negative impact on the value of my property, both financial and amenity value, given that this the only green space in the centre of Deptford, which is within a conservation area and it is very close to a primary school."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eileen Richards
"I am a regular user of the park and the river frontage adjoining this. In an area where there is little open space available for a variety of leisure activities, this is essential to the area of Wapping and Shadwell., especially for children, young people, dog walkers and cyclists. Losing this important piece of land for a number of years will seriously disrupt the enjoyment of the area for local residents and users of the park and walkways "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Kenyon
"I would liek details of th project and to continue to be updtae as I own a property in located in SE16 on the Thames and I am concerned as gto the impact."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Soanes
"Having lived in London for 26 years I can see how the Thames has improved, having moved to within a 10 minute walk of the Tames a year ago I can see the need for a sewer that meets the need of a 21st century city in the. However I don't understand why a brownfield site has not been chosen and over the King Edward Memorial Park in Tower Hamlets for the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The park is a small oasis in a densly populated urban area: families bring their children to 'play on the swing' & safefly ride their bikes there, its a pleasant riverside walk to the pubs & restaurants of Wapping for locals, vistors & toursists, many people (myself include) run alonng the river through the park, people cycle to work through the park, young people play tennis & football in the adjacent hardcourt pitches. Encouraging a healthy lifestyle across the age span is an aim of this Governement is it not? Why take that away from a diverse urban community where there is limited access to green areas (no matter how small)?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Squire
"I do not agree with the plans for King Edward Memorial Park. The impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Park and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Arhag Housing Association (Arhag Housing Association)
"Arhag housing owns and manages the homes of approximately 25 people who live at Carnwath road that is directly next to the site of proposed works. Contact has been made with our residents about mitigation measures on offer during the life of the project. This has included an offer to install double glazing. This is already installed. Arhag on behalf of the residents will be seeking more appropriate methods of mitigation over and above has been offered. The residents have indicated that the land on which their building is sited is "re-claimed" and have grave reservations about the impact of any drilling (underground work) that they anticipate will lead to structural damage and the return of a rodent infestation that they suffered some time past. The residents have heard that some provision for decanting is being made and wish to understand whether this just applies to home owners and private sector renters or whether social housing residents may also have use of this remedy. This is because some residents have medical conditions that may be further aggravated by the character and duration of the proposed works. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Fox
"The King Edward memorial park was a gift from King Edward to the people of East London to enjoy forever. People in this community walk a number of kilometers in order to access the park as it is the only green space along this stretch of the river. My daily routine involves walking my dog here at least twice a day (along with other dog owners) Closing or diminishing the size of the park will have a serious negative impact on my quality of life. This certainly runs counter to the inscription on the memorial in the park "given to the people of East London to enjoy forever."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diane Stedman
"I disagree with the use of the park and foreshore. The park is one of the very few open public riverside spaces, it is a mature park with considerable ecological benefit to the local community and environment. Whilst I agree in principal with the thames super sewer I believe that if there are viable brownfield sites that can be used they must be properly considered. I really hope the planning inspectorate will consider carefully the proposed alternative of Heckford Industrial Estate. I use this park regularly as a leisure resource, I believe it s loss would be of considerable detriment to both the local community and the wider London community and have tragic environmental consequences in an ecologically fragile area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
East of England Waste Technical Advisory Body (East of England Waste Technical Advisory Body)
"The East of England Waste Technical Advisory Body is the grouping of waste planning authority officers in the East of England. These planning authorities are concerned that spoil and other wastes from the Thames Tunnel project are managed sustainably and not dumped in the East of England in innappropriate locations or in facilities that are required for other wastes arising in less distant locations. It is not clear that the impact of waste from the construction phase of the project has been properly assessed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs MDM Behrens
"Impact on road infrastructure. Noise and dust pollution. Devaluation of property and possible lack of sale."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert A. Mckenzie
"This development is proceeding without any sufficient research into alternative ways of dealing with the rainwater flow which currently causes the problem. It might well be that there are practical approaches to dealing with the disposal of heavy rainfall. The proposed tunnel is exorbitantly expensive and the works needed to implement it will cause devastation at a number of construction points. It should not be approved until detailed study has been carried out to find ways of preventing heavy rainfall reaching the river."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tempus Wharf Freehold Limited (Tempus Wharf Freehold Limited)
"TWFL is the head leaseholder of the residential development known as Tempus wharf situated close to the site at Chambers Wharf. The company is owned by 24 of the 28 leaseholders of the flats. We and the surrounding area will be significantly affected by the noise, disturbance and workings caused by drilling of the main shaft at Chambers Wharf. TWFL submitted detailed concerns, twice, to Thames Water and suggested mitigating action. Our letters were not responded to nor are our concerns addressed or mentioned in the application. We believe the consultation was not properly carried out as differing approaches requiring different information was asked for by Mouchel and Thames Water. Our interest was shown wrongly on the forms sent to us but never corrected despite our complaints. A copy of our detailed submission can be made available. The major concerns were the lack of being able to view any Enviromental Impact assessment or be given information about the proposal fitting into the National Waste water Strategy nor whether funding was in place for the project or why local treatment plants options had been rejected. Hence we believe no attempt was made to properly consult. Locally our concerns about lorry holding bays, the effect on children walking to the three schools adjoining the site, noise polution, local monitoring etc have been met with these will be dealt with by code of conduct following the granting of planning. This is not sufficent as a response to our concerns. We ask that the application be refused until proper informed consultation has taken place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Manns
"I have concerns regarding the potential effects of the development consent order if it were to be made and fully implemented. I am a leaseholder in   situated on the south side of Jamaica Road, directly opposite and overlooking the Chambers Wharf site. I believe there may be issues regarding the volume of construction traffic to the site, noise, fumes and other disruption. My daughter and son attend   , which may also be adversely affected by these issues. I am concerned that this development, work on which has been reported as likely to take several years, and the resulting facility will have a negative effect on the value of my property. I am also concerned by the reported suggestions that the proposed size and positioning of the tunnel is excessive and uneccessary in proportion to the problems that the need for safe transit of sewage presents. Several alternative solutions are available, see here: http://www.saveyourriverside.org/alternatives/. Please do not implement the plan at Chambers Wharf."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr John Riddell
"I am the joint owner of a flat likely to be affected by the Shad Thames works in Maguire Street (   in Shad Thames)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ms Gill Lister
"I live in Australia, but own a flat in   which is rented out. So, while I am currently not directly affected by the noise and disruption my tenants will be, and it is likely that rentals in the area will experience reduced income as a result of the consequences of the construction. It is a high density residential area, so many people will be affected by the noise, construction dust, sewerage smells and congestion. Also, there are schools in the area affected. I understand there are alternatives that have been proposed, including the conclusions of the independent Thames Tunnel Commission, chaired by Lord Selborne and endorsed by 5 London councils, including Southwark. There are suggestions that Thames Water could use its own industrial sites, and so avoid the impact on a residential area. Some of these alternative proposals appear to be considerably less expensive. And I understand that at a meeting at Abbey Mills, one of the possible alternatives, Thames Water representatives did agree that there would be enough capacity for removing spoil and so not interrupt the progress of the tunnel boring. So, have the alternatives been properly, impartially, thoroughly assessed? If not, then they should be. Is there an overwhelming, definitive argument/rationale for Chambers Wharf, given the negative impact on thousands of people during the years of construction, and the cost to the public purse? What are the criteria that have been used to choose Chambers Wharf, and how valid are they, weighed against what seem to be technically reasonable alternatives that cost the public less, both economically and in terms of quality of life?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ms Lyndsay Gough
"I am a joint owner of a property within the vicinity which may be affected by the Shad Thames development (flat in   )."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paula Melville
"I live directly opposite Chambers Wharf and I know all noise will travel very well over the water and directly affect me. I support the need for a Thames Sewer but I do not agree that Chambers Wharf is a good site for a major development being in in a dense residential area on both sides of the river and next to a school all of which will suffer for many years. It may be that Chambers Wharf is shown to be the only option but if this is the case 24 hour working should not be allowed and strict guidelines on noise (with agreed intensity values) should be imposed during working hours. In the context of such a large project if planning is allowed considerable safeguards (e.g sound baffling as with some motorways and sensible traffic routes) should be in place and enforced to reduce nuisance. The work will prevent me enjoying the use of my balcony and having open windows. Consideration of all residents should be paramount."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adam Thompson
"The development of the Thames Tideway Project in Southwark will bring signifigant negative impacts on the area and community which needs to be managed properly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dan Goldsack
"As a local resident in Wapping and frequent visitor to the King Edward Memorial Park, I am lodging my objection in the strongest of terms that Thames Water have selected the Park as a construction site for the Thames Tideway Tunnel. King Edwards Memorial Park is the only green space for children in the area to play and it is a central hub for families in the local area. An alternative brownfield site of Heckford has been identified and Tower Hamlets Council used third party consultants to consider both sites and the impact the essential works will have. Heckford was the preferred site. With this unbiased evidence coupled with the desire of local people to save the only green space that fronts onto the river in the area, it is imperative that the Planning Inspectorate halts Thames Water's chosen site of the King Edward Memorial Park. With wider issues of child obesity and a focus to promote exercise post Olympics for our young people in the East End, turning the park into a building site is simply out of step. There is no argument that the sewage flowing into the Thames needs treating and the EU directive compels Thames Water to do so. However, when a brownfield site is has been identified as a viable alternative, it is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate to protect London's green spaces and instruct Thames Water to opt for a brownfield site to cite their Thames Tideway Tunnel."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John G Bullard
"I own a flat next to the proposed Sewage station in King Edward VII Memorial Park E1 (KEMP). It seems crazy to ruin this green openspace park, enjoyed by thousands of Individuals and Families when there is an excellent brownfield site available at Heckfield Street which could perform exactly the same function without being an environmental catastrophe for those of us who live close to KEMP"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Dorian Mead
"I agree with the basis for this application as the most practical means to address the current and ongoing issues relating to sewerage and rainwater management for London. I wish to be involved in the planning process as I have environmental interests that may be relevant to the execution of the build process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Wilson
"I don’t agree with the plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Park and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard G Brown
"I disagree with the plans to use King Edward Memorial Park as the primary base for work to intercept the sewer which passes underneath it. The impact on the community (I live nearby) would be excessive, both in terms of noise and reduction in amenity during the works period. Moreover, the plans are especially unreasonable because a perfectly viable "brownfield" alternative exists in the Heckford Street Industrial Park. I understand that such an option would still require use of the part but it would be on an altogether smaller scale. I actually live *closer* to the Heckford site but prefer it both because it would leave more of the park unaffected and because the already loud ambient noise in the Heckford area would make the noise less intrusive overall - it would be more likely to "blend in". By contrast, the serenity of the riverfront means any noise, howsoever limited, would be extremely disruptive. Please insist that Thames Water adopt the Heckford option instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Rothwell
"The tunnel assiduously avoids housing until it gets to Hammersmith Bridge but is now planned to come under the properties on the North side of Lillian Road SW13. The short and long term effects of building a tunnel under the land housing approximately 40 Victorian Terrace Houses, all with fragile drains and some like mine with expensive wet underfloor heating over which kitchens are solidly built, is unknown. Should for instance, the wet underfloor heating be damaged in anyway, in my case, would mean the whole kitchen would have to be raised as all units are solidly built over it. My over riding concern is not just the cracks you might see but the cracks that are out of sight. Our houses we have beeen told are built on clay but clay does not necessarily settle evenly and settlement can take years to show not months. We understand that Thames Water Utilities will undertake a full survey of our properties before and after the project but I have not yet had that committment in writing. I wish also to know for what time length after the project end would Thames Water be liable -given settlement and cracks do no necessarily show in the short term. We would obviously prefer that Thames Water Utilities had stuck with their original plan not to come inland at Hammersmith Bridge. Now I would like in writing Thames Water commitment to pre and post house surveys and acceptable length of time e.g. 10 years for their liability for any damage caused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Morley
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ms Rachel Lalchan
"I disagree with the plans for King Edward Memorial Park due to the potential impacts on the local community which I believe are unnecessary and unreasonably excessive. I understand there is an alternative site proposed at Heckford Street Industrial Park, which will not impact local residents in such a disruptive and unethical way. I implore the Planning Inspectorate to support residents' rights to continued access to this thriving green space and review the brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Gendle
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign to preserve King Edward Memorial Park in it's entirety. King Edward Memorial Park is a piece of metropolitan open land and has a range of mature trees that will take a lifetime to replace. It is an integral part of a well used pedestrian and cycle route along the edge of the Thames and the loss of the foreshore to a building site for in excess of three years is a horrific prospect. The selection of one of the only park that is within reasonable walking distance of my home as the site of the new super sewer is unreasonable given that there are brownfield sites within the immediate vicinity that could have been utilised. For example: Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. The consultation process conducted by Tames Water was also a cynical exercise in presenting alternative "options", most of which were even less palatable than the loss of the foreshore to King Edward Memorial Park. "Options" presented included the loss of Shadwell Basin, the loss of the whole park, and the loss of a strip of the park adjacent to Free Trade Wharf. All were absurd. The result of this exercise is the loss of just the foreshore somehow becomes the "desirable" option when clearly it is nothing of the sort. Save KEMP's suggested solution that the Heckford Industrial Estate was supposedly considered however Thames Water offered little justification for why the option was rejected other than it added complexity to the construction of the super sewer. This is not the same as "it cannot be done". Therefore it should be the selected option."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Southfield Park Triangle Residents Association (SPTRA) (Southfield Park Triangle Residents Association (SPTRA))
"TO FOLLOW"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Southfield Park Triangle Residents Association (SPTRA) (Southfield Park Triangle Residents Association (SPTRA)) on behalf of SPTRA
"TO FOLLOW"
Members of the Public/Businesses
St Josephs Catholic Primary School (St Josephs Catholic Primary School)
"Problems for our school - The land is our Fire evacuation spot Crossfields Street & adjacent road would be inaccessible for teachers, parents, students & visitors. From wavelengths bus route would be closed & our side of the road which would result in teachers, parents & children being late to school - Impacting on our attendance figures & danger to children (30 second cross over) Windows will be dirty from digging Staff/children have asthma - lots of dust right near our playground Noise pollution"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thames21 (Thames21)
"Thames21 involves, educates and engages people in practical volunteering activities to care for rivers, streams and ponds in local neighbourhoods across the Greater London Area. The charity works directly with members of the public. It uses the wide appeal of waterways to bring communities together in environmental volunteering activities, building a sense of shared responsibility and community pride. Last year a total of 13,667 people of all ages and backgrounds took part in the charity’s activities throughout London. Thames21 and its volunteers witness at first hand and deplore in the strongest terms the raw sewage which almost continually pollutes the tidal Thames and we state without hesitation that it is wholly unacceptable. The issue of sewage discharging into the River Thames must be tackled effectively and without further delay in order to meet the needs of residents’ health, the needs of our natural environment, wildlife and biodiversity and for the continuing use of the river for amenity, education, community and national events, transport and tourism. At Thames21 volunteering events where members of the community, local residents aged from eight years old to eighty all come together to clear away rubbish and litter from the Thames, they are shocked and appalled to see there on the riverside the used disposable nappies, sanitary products and all the other items disposed of down people’s toilets – next to where families picnic, school and youth groups learn to row and sail and where so many Londoners and visitors come to enjoy the river. People are even more appalled to find out that this is not a one-off catastrophe, but an increasingly regular occurrence. The sewage in the River Thames must be dealt with quickly, effectively and decisively. Action is needed now. Thames21 has looked carefully at the main alternative solutions put forward during the past ten years of study and research and there is no doubt that the proposal to construct an interceptor sewer diverting sewage overflows away from the river and to proper sewage treatment facilities is the best and most effective short and long term solution. Other suggestions have included the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS). London’s busy, intensively utilised and built-up landscape, complex drainage system together with the slow permeability of its underlying clay soils and saturated gravels means that the wholesale installation of SuDS to divert sufficient rainwater away from the drains to provide a workable alternative to the Thames Tideway Tunnel is wholly impractical. Nevertheless complementary SuDS installation is of great importance to extend the life of the Thames Tideway Tunnel and ensure the sustainability of future population growth in the London area. We therefore also call for the steady, long term implementation of SuDS throughout the Capital whenever and wherever opportunities arise and for their inclusion within all planned changes in land use, development and improvements going forward both in the public and private realm, and that this should be achieved through education, awareness, incentive schemes and regulation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim Keleher
"I live less than a 5 minute walk away from King Edward Memorial Park. At least 5 times a week I take my 2 young sons (3 and 7 months) for a walk to the park to enjoy the green space, kick a ball, chase dogs, ride the scooter, enjoy the brilliant playground, watch the boats or just to take in the river breeze. This is a beautiful and vital green space for the local community, a community which is bereft of such spaces. Ours is also a young community with many families and young children in the area frequenting the park. Where are our next generation supposed to exercise and enjoy the outdoors if we are willing to turn green areas into sewers? This is a wholly disgusting plan by Thames Water and one that must be rejected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Arthur Edward Watson
"If expert opinion deems it essential to increase the capacity for removal of waste water, from London, via a new tunnel system, I do not object to meeting this need. My objection to the proposed scheme relates to a section at Limehouse where the plan to utilise, temporarily and permanently, part of the King Edward Memorial Park, will result in a detrimental effect on the social and environmental conditions affecting the lives of many people living in this part of London. The Park, with its river Thames frontage, is unique in East London and is a "green" oasis in a heavily populated area. Thames Water have acknowledged that the greater part of the park, and river frontage, will be required during construction and that with the removal of many mature trees and shrubs in the park it would not be returned to its present condition for a decade. The residual plan is to leave permanent service roads through the park for equipment maintenance access, and an artificial extension built on to part of the river frontage. Large air moving and purification equipment will be permanently housed on this extension int the river. There is a nearby alternative industrial site on which to locate this equipment, acknowledged by Thames Water to be viable,with no additional expense and which would avoid the social and environmental impact arising from the planned scheme. This modification must be better for all parties involved with the project. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cairo Cannon
"Please use another site than King Edward Park for your sewer works. It is one of the most unique and beautiful parks in London. I walk there most days and marvel at it every time, the green against the river with mature tress and flowers and play facilities is wonderful, life enhancing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Yvonne Cripps
"I attended some meetings about the proposal and find it extremely difficult to believe that it has been proposed for the doorstep of a large primary school with children very likely to get caught up in all the lorry traffic which this site would necessitate. In addition to that, the noise, vibration and likely subsidence would affect very large numbers of high rise flat and home dwellers in the area. I can't imagine why such a built-up, extremely high density, residential area would be thought suitable when there were other alternatives, such as Abbey Mills, an already industrial type site, available and indeed perfectly viable projects of a completely different type to solve the flood water problem. I am also utterly astounded that any proposal in an extremely high density residential neighbourhood would involve 24 -hour-a-day, seven days a week working. How will the very large number of people resident in the area be fit for work in the morning when the noise and vibration is 24/7? I should think there would be significant medical issues arising for the many people living around the site if noise were ceaseless with no end in sight at weekends or at night time over a series of many years. And the children at the school would never know a noise-free environment for their entire primary school life! Something is very seriously wrong with the proposed choice of site for this project and indeed with the project itself. Much needless and extreme suffering would be caused when other very viable and less costly alternatives have been put forward. There are other ways of solving the flood water problem at much less cost and greater efficiency which have been put before meetings and one wonders which foreign corporations will be profiting from this immense infrastructure project - by far the most expensive and most disruptive of communities of all the possible alternatives."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howard Cousins
"The proposed tunnel site is in an area that was a deprived part of London.. it has been slowly regenerating over the last fifteen years and if the tunnel is sited here it will set back the regeneration of the area ten years. Since I moved to Bermondsey fifteen years ago there has been a certain level of construction activity .. many of us were looking forward to a time when the area would settle down.. and we would not have the noise & dust and traffic generated by construction projects. There are a number of good schools in the area . the children will suffer being so close to the proposed activity. Congestion is also a major problem on roads nearby.. construction would make this worse. I believe there are non residential sites that could be considered as an alternative. It seems that the poorer areas of London are always selected for these projects because they lack the political clout of wealthy West Londoners"
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Sewell
"I am a home owner under the planned path. I am worried how the tunnelling under my building will effect the safety and how the extensive road works will slow a road that is just one lane....this will have massive negative impact to the rentability and value of my property "
Local Authorities
London Borough of Camden (London Borough of Camden)
"On behalf of the London Borough of Camden: The Council, as a neighbouring planning authority, has considered your request for observations on the application referred to above and hereby raises no objection. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marian Monas
"I am disabled and live in a flat with no garden, above a noisy road. The park is one of the few places near to my home that I can go to - to enjoy some peace, greenery, beauty, birdsong and space. There is an alternative site - the brownfield Heckford Street Industrial Estate - which would have far less of a disruptive impact on the environment and the local community, in terms of quality of life for the local residents. Also, the original data supplied by Thames water, stating that traffic congestion would be unacceptable if Heckfield St site were chosen,was incorrect. It has subsequently emerged that there would be very little difference in traffic congestion. I have some questions 1. Why has the Heckford site not been chosen? 2. Have the Heckford Street Industrial Estate stakeholders any connection with those who are making the decision to choose the King Edward Memorial Park site and if so, have all parties declared a conflict of interest? Please put the wellbeing of members of the public and those who are not fortunate enough to have private outdoor space, before the profits of corporate shareholders. Thanks "
Members of the Public/Businesses
RYA Thames Valley and London Region (RYA Thames Valley and London Region)
"Alan Woolford Chairman, RYA Thames Valley and London Region Pennings Quay, XX Thames Meadow, Shepperton. TW17 8LT"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Cook
"I believe the park should not be ruined as it is a public place. My bedrooms overlook the park so I will have very bad noise and polution issues if this goes ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colet Estates (Colet Estates)
"To whom it may concern, We would like to air our concerns over the fumes, noise, dust and effect on already congested roads and neighboring residential and commercial properties during the entire life span of the proposed Tunnel and more specifically those generated from the Hammersmith Pumping Station. What proposed plans are there to minimize the effects of the above? Thank you for noting our concerns. Yours faithfully, Tariq Khalil for and on behalf of Colet Estates"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gordon Joly
"Having taken part in the two consultation phases, and taken an interest in King Edward Memorial Park, I was happy to see that comments on that small part of the overall scheme were taken into account between the first phase and second phase of consultation. However, whether the scheme should proceed now. The Lee Tunnel has not been finished, and water and waste water management in London is still very poor. Other schemes to reduce waste water flows could be cheaper and more effective in long term (50 years or longer). If the Thames Tunnel is built after the Lee Tunnel is in operation, it will be clear if the Thames Tunnel will work, since the Lee Tunnel is a smaller but similar project to deal with excess flow at Abbey Mills."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Colvin
"I live within a short distance of the Thames, and I paddle a kayak on the Thames several times a week when I come into very close contact with the River. Despite the fact that the environment of the River has improved sufficiently to allow animal life to flourish along the river, every time untreated sewage is released into the River because of heavy rain, the environment improvement is set back with disastrous effects on the wild life and the users of the river for leisure purposes, as well the general environment of people living near the river. It is clear from the massive building programmes along the river that the demands on the sewage system are growing exponentially and that infrastructure needs to be improved. It is also clear from the various reports that the Thames Tideway Tunnel is the basic solution to a major problem, although other proposals can help as well. There are also many economic benefits to such large infrastructural projects. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rev
"I strongly oppose the proposed Thames Water sewage works as I believe there to be alternatives which have not been fully addressed. The local park is a boon to the community providing much needed open space, and it would be a tragedy to demolish our trees. Secondly I own a flat in Trafalgar Court adjacent to the proposed site and the thought of such potential misery and disruption is unbearable for me and for the other residents. We enjoy our foreshore, and I am particularly anxious about pollution, noise, traffic disruption, potential subsidence and overflow of sewage into our homes (breakage of pipes etc) "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Goodchild
"King Edward Memorial Park is one of the few public parks in an ethnically diverse and quite deprived area of East London. If you go there at any point over a weekend when the weather is decent you will see people from many different races and cultures enjoying the space in a variety of ways. For many it is the only access to green space and if that access is taken away from the local community it will reduce the quality of life in an area which for many people around there is already poor."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Cripps
"There is high risk of subsidence under my building at   . also large numbers of residents/ tenants will be subjected to round the clock works for several years with noise dust etc. The site is inappropriate for the project as main entrance top projerct roight in the middle of heavily populated area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katy Bradfield
"As a local resident in Wapping, I frequently use the King Edward Memorial Park as it is the only green space in the area. It is plain to see that the park is not, by definition, a 'brownfield site'. Living in a built-up, urban area, such green spaces are vital to residents' physical and mental well-being, and I urge you to reject Thames Water's application in favour of a truly brown field site, and save our beautiful park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Katherine Bradfield
"My daughter lives in Wapping and I have close friends who live in Limehouse. I know from my frequent visits to this area of the East End, that there are very few public green spaces for residents and their children to enjoy. It is a densely populated area with the majority of residents living in large blocks of flats, converted warehouses and council housing. Therefore most residents do not have access to their own gardens and rely on the provision of public parks and gardens to exercise and relax. The Thames towpath is also a vital facility for residents to walk and enjoy the river side. The construction of the proposed Thames Water super sewer will destroy the character of the area, by destroying the green spaces of the King Edward Park and closing the towpath during construction. It will also be appalling to have a super sewer and all the contingent issues of smells, health and safety, destruction of local amenities in this populated area of Tower Hamlets, which suffers from social problems and some degree of deprivation already. I very much doubt that Thames Water would ever suggest siting a super sewer in areas like Chelsea, Pimlico or Westminster. It is both undemocratic and unfair to suggest siting it in Tower Hamlets, which is less prosperous and in greater need of parks like the King Edward Memorial Park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Azoulay
"I own a flat that faces Chambers Wharf across the river and I am extremely concerned about the noise and disruption that will take place using Chambers Wharf as a main drilling and reception site for the Tunnel. I am particularly concerned about the round the clock working which is likely to create significant noise which will undoubtedly affect the potential to get undisturbed and peaceful sleep. The loading of barges at Chambers Wharf could create significant noise pollution making it hard to enjoy our outside space during the day as well as creating problems at night."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Bradfield
"Unsuitable to be sited in a residential and highly populated area plus there are very few existing green spaces for the residents I believe it to be unfair that Tower Hamlets has been selected as it is a very mixed, vibrant and exciting area to live that has had more than its fair share of problems over the years - why not select Chelsea instead?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne-Marie Conaty
"I object to the proposed application as it will have an adverse impact upon the amenities in the area including; Too close proxity to schools with risk to children's health and education. Too close proxity to residential housing. Inadequate access for heavy vehicles. Adverse impace upon traffic flows and levels. Risk of damage to residential properties and inadequate protection of areas from noise and pollution. Change of use removing proposals for residential use (contrary to government proposals on Housing requirements). Adverse impact on conservation area. Adverse impact upon world heritage site - Tower Bridge (development within smell and sound of proposed development). Risk to health from ventilation shafts being immediately adjacent to residential properties. Proposed 24/7 industry not in keeping with location which is a quite residential area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne-Marie Conaty
"River View Heights Limited is the owners of the freehold at XX Bermondsey Wall West, London, SE16 4TN and objects to the application in relation to Chambers Wharf as it; 1. Is a change of use from residential (as per existing planning permission) to industrial. The area has undergone extensive re-generation in recent years in line with various government policies to re-develop inner city areas. The proposed development is inconsistent with the surrounded area as these are residential developments. 2. Is inconsistent with the government policy to increase the housing and in particular the affordable housing in the London area. The site is currently designed for housing including affordable housing. The site will be lost to housing for between 7 to 10 years. 3. Is Located in close proximity to a number of local schools and opposite one of the few green spaces in the area. Thames Water’s proposals for secondary glazing and a pedestrian crossing as document do not address the risk to children that their health and education will be impacted by such a development. The proposal fails to take account of the government policy to encourage greater physical activity among school children as Thames Water’s proposal for secondary glazing envisages that children are kept inside 24/7. Noise and pollution will have a detrimental impact on all the children in the area and as the schools cannot be located. 4. Includes works which are not subject to any form of sound controls. Section 1d has not reference to noise control measures. This means that the proposal will result in a loss of amenities in the area as there is currently leisure space and the Thames Path adjacent to the area. 5. Includes Parking restrictions will have an adverse impact on business and residents. 6. Creates additional traffic from heavy vehicles will have an adverse impact upon the area. 7. Is within sight of a world heritage site of Tower Bridge which will be adversely impacted by the noise and potentially the smells originating ventilation shafts. Thames Water has confirmed that smells with be generated by these shafts. Thames Water has also confirmed these will run continuously and discharge for 15% of the time which is 3.5 hours per day every day of the year. Any such smell originating from these ventilation shafts will have an adverse impact upon the developed restaurant area of Butlers Wharf which lies immediately to the west of the site. This will result in a loss of employment and amenities in the area. Unfortunately when dining in the outside there is no such thing as a “minimal smell”. 8. Includes ventilation shafts the releasing of fumes and smells level with residential housing. Normally such shafts are above local housing or businesses but the site is surrounding by housing which is up to 8 floors and as such the ventilation is directly into residential housing. There are health issues associated with such proposals which have not been explored. The release of smells into the area will have an adverse impact upon amenities available. 9. Involves the remove of the flood defences. The schools are at front line risk if flooding occurs during the works. 10. No archaeology survey has been undertaken of the foreshore to be developed. 11. Is adjacent to listed buildings and a conservation area and out of keeping with a conservation area. 12. Fail to consider that the area is currently used by migrating and resident bird and wildlife. The development will mean such wildlife in unsustainable. 13. Will with its associated noise and pollution (including chemical and light pollution) will have an adverse impact upon the surrounding area. 14. Is in a residential area and the site is too small for the proposed work and can only be made of sufficient size if considerable additional work is undertaken. Thames Water has an alternative drive site which is in the middle of an industrial site of over 15 acres at Abbey Mills. The cost of the work allocated to the building of the cofferdam could be used to enhance the river access as Abbey Mills and as such result in future amenities in that area. 15. Includes proposals (including tunnelling and vibrations) that can damage surrounding buildings. There are residential buildings so any risk also includes direct risks to individuals. 16. Will potentially damage the oak trees and other species in the vehicle access roads. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Foley
"The impact of building the shaft for the Thames Tunnel on the Crossfields site will be far too great for the residents and road network. The construction will be taking place in a dense residential area and narrowing Deptford Church Street to just one lane each way during the construction will force traffic onto Creekside which, once you take into account all the residential street parking, is only a single lane in many places. There is also a railway arch which is only a single lane. Please reconsider your Crossfields proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Madewell
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. Because I live close to the Heckford st site I believe local people have not been properly consulted about the alternatives"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Henrey
"I do not have enough information regarding the application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Fulton
"The proposed path of the Thames Tunnel to the Thames river from the Acton Storm Tanks is very close to our property (estimate 30 metres). The tunnel construction will be very disruptive and the deep drilling may affect our property's foundations and cause subsidence. I have had no contact from Thames Water so far which is completely unacceptabe considering the tunnel is likely to be very close to our property."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dharmesh Odedra
"Dear Sirs, I feel very strongly against the proposed Thames Tideway tunnel project using my local park (King Edwards Memorial Park) as a building site during contruction of the tunnel. I have no problem with the tunnel per se but cannot understand why brownfield/industrial land is not used and instead they want to use a local and much loved speck of green in this area. I take my nephew there to the playground and he loves it, all this will be wrecked and ruined (for a few years at least) and all because Thames water want to grab the easy,cheap option rather than use another piece of land eg Heckford Street Industrial Estate . To be honest with you I will probably sell our flat and move out of this area should the project be given the go ahead. I implore you not to let them use KEMP as a building site for years. I fully support the save KEMP campaign. Yours Sincerely D Odedra"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Romesh Angunawela
"Dear Sir/Madam, I write as a member of the community living next to and enjoying King Edwards Park. This park offers great pleasure to many of us in this area. I personally enjoy the wonderful solace of the park in the morning and evening and the wonderful sound of birdsong that brings calm and an opportunity to connect with nature amidst an increasingly busy city and pace of life. In the Spring and Summer the park is full of local children and adults relaxing, playing, excersising eating. Young couples walk hand in hand and enjoy a chaste kiss. This park is a source of joy for a multicutural and varied community. A common focus that transcends religion and background. To destroy the park destroys the heart of an community. I implore you to listen to the voices of the people of this community and save our park, that we love. Surely there is an alternative available to destroying this wonderful haven?!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Henry Brown
"I support the proposal. I have lived next to the Thames for over 30 years and enjoy sailing on it from Strand on the Green Sailing Club. I am very much aware of the variable water quality and the fact that in periods of heavy rain the river becomes polluted from sewage discharges. I believe that the proposal, along with others to improve Mogden etc., will significantly improve the quality of water in the river and benefit the lives and well-being of all who enjoy the river."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Richard Osborne
"I understand that to pay for this tunnel our sewerage charges are going to increase significantly in the future. As a resident of Hertfordshire, I will receive no benefit from this development, but am required to pay for it simply because my sewage is dealt with by the same company. If this tunnel is so important, why is it not being financed by central government or the mayor of London? As it is, I am being expected to subsidise one of the richest cities on the planet. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linton Fuel Oils Limited (c/o LFO Properties Limited) (Linton Fuel Oils Limited (c/o LFO Properties Limited))
"The application for plot 64 is for powers sought limited to the acquisition of subsoil only and if this has no detrimental effect on the potential redevelopment of the site then we have no particular issue. I suspect that this will be dependent on the depth of works beneath the site. We wish to understand the exact nature and depth of works proposed under our plot."
Members of the Public/Businesses
River Thames Society (River Thames Society)
"The River Thames Society was founded in 1962 to help protect and promote the river. We are unique among Thames organisations as we represent all activities and interests, with members in five branches, from source to sea. From the outset we have been concerned about pollution and its effects on the river and have campaigned for preventative measures, legal and practical, with considerable success, as the Thames, including the reaches affected by the Tideway Tunnel application has markedly improved over the last 30 or 40 years. Partly this has been due to the demise of river-side industriies and docks, but ther ehave been significant improvements made by Thames Water and its predecessors, in sewage treatment plants , with the end of sludge dumping into the river and the estuary. However, an important source of pollution remains caused by the frequent discharges of sewage through the combined sewer overflows, which are dangerous to the health of people,river life and the wider environment. Although we support alternative drainage systems ( SUDS), all the evidence and our members' experience on and along the Thames is that there is no more realistic or better proposed solution to this severe problem than the Tunnel. We appreciate there will be disruption during construction, but also increased use of the river and welcome employment opportunities. Our members, many from river-side communities, feel that the gains resulting from finally ending this pollution vastly outweighs any short-term disadvantages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Swita Odedra
"Hi I, like my husband, strongly object to the proposed Thames tunnel project using our local park (King Edwards Memorial Park) for use as a construction/building site. The park is much loved by locals, adults and children alike and is a rare and precious place of peace and quiet in a busy city. We often go for a run or walk around it, use the tennis courts or take family there for picnics when the weather is right. For the park to be turned into a building site for years would be a unacceptable and unforgivable misuse of land especially when their are alternative brownfield sites nearby eg Heckford Street Industrial Estate. I ask you to please reject their proposal outright and ask them to reconsider their plans. Yours Sincerely Mrs Swita Odedra"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Environmental Group (Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Environmental Group)
"We residents and environmentalists in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe object to the plans of Thames Water for Chambers Wharf since they are technically unnecessary and yet at the same time will destroy a peaceful, riverside neighbourhood for many years to come. Homes and schools will suffer severe noise and disruption, the view of Tower Bridge will be lost, the Thames Path walk will be ruined, and the much acclaimed model housing scheme, already granted planning permission, will be postponed for a decade. In addition, the Riverside Primary School, having worked for many years to attain its position as one of the top ten primary schools in the country, will not attract parents if it lies just a few yards away from a major industrial site. Nor will the area maintain its high status among tourists, with the business they bring, if it is blighted by a noisy industrial complex that will generate considerable traffic congestion. All this is quite apart from Thames Water's own admission that some residents will have to be moved out of their homes for long periods. In regard to 'technical necessity', we believe this to be a fiction. Thames Water was instructed by government to deal with the problem of sewage overflow into the river but in Southwark there is no sewage overflow problem. We believe the motive for acquiring land in Southwark is financial. The international company that owns Thames Water has often acquired land assets which are then used for financial speculation or leverage. Thames Water have argued that there is a geological change in the vicinity of Tower Bridge that necessitates a land base. But modern levels of technology ensure that any technical problems encountered in tunnelling can be resolved in a variety of ways, depending on the will of the developer. It is the same with Thames’ plea on health and safety grounds. These would be technically ironed out before work begins. We are convinced that if there was no open space available in Southwark, the Thames Tunnel would still go ahead. As with the Channel Tunnel, if no land base is available then technical solutions are devised nonetheless. Indeed, the advice we have received from Southwark Council experts and from engineering consultants we have contacted is that there are several offshore, or under-river, alternatives available which require relatively minor work on land. They cite examples in Asia, the USA and Scandinavia. These do not seem more expensive than the Thames Water proposals and may even be considerably cheaper. Opening an extra land-site is regarded as one of the most expensive options in tunnelling because there are so many hidden or indirect costs. We believe government has a duty to consider cost to the taxpayer. BREG can supply the inspectorate with further details at the appropriate stage. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Impregilo Spa (Impregilo Spa)
"no comment"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Evans
"i am concerned about safety to public users of the river i am concerned about transport issues in the Putney area which is already heavily congested i am concerned that Putney High Streeta nd putney Bridge should not be used for works traffic to access the Barn ELms site - traffic should be directed to the west, not East"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Angela Mee
"King Edward Memorial park where the proposed works are taking place is the only park for local people in the area. . It is unique as it is by the river and was built "in grateful memory of King Edward VII . This park is dedicated to the use and enjoyment of the people of East London for ever" This is written in stone, in the park and opened in 1922 by King George V and Queen Mary. It is the only park between Tower Hill and the Isle of dogs. There are other brownfield sites nearby more suitable for a sewer. No one wants to live by a sewer in a built up area and the method proposed is , I understand , untested in the UK . This could also cause health concerns as well as obvious smells and this location is inappropriate due to the reasons mentioned above. It would ruin the park and view designed for local people to be used forever. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs H Parker-Brown
"I disagree with the use of King Edward Memorial Park in Wapping for the works when there is a brownfield alternative available (at Heckford Street). The park is a precious piece of public riverside open space which is well used by the local community. It is unreasonable for Thames Water to make use this area to the detriment of the local community. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
National Association of Boat Owners (National Association of Boat Owners)
"As a boating organisation, we are supportive of the intent of the project to improve water quality. Our concerns will be about the impact on navigation and mooring both during and after construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Yvonne Jackson
"I disagree with the application. I live less than 50 metres from the Chambers Wharf site and it would have a detrimental impact on my day to day life 24 hours/7days a week. I believe there are better and less costly ways of dealing with the sewage problem. The main beneficiaries will be the investors. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
British Telecommunications plc (British Telecommunications plc)
"1. British Telecommunications plc (BT) have a building on Upper Thames Street known as Baynard House. Baynard House is a major telephone exchange building serving the City with telephony and communications. BT equipment in Baynard is cooled by a water exchange system which intakes and extracts via pipework buried beneath the Thames. Thames Tideway are proposing a new river bus terminal and a ferry pontoon proposed directly above the BT cooling pipework tunnel works include the driving of sheet piles over the BT cooling tunnel. BT is extremely concerned that the river bus terminal works will damage the BT tunnel and in turn cause failue to cool the BT equipment in Baynard House. 2. BT have deep level equipment tunnels below the Thames river bed and stretches of the BT tunnels, particularly those running near to Plot 40 Embankment Pier (known as St Martins GPO tunnel) and Plot 47 Upper Thames Street (known as Blackfriars to St Pauls GPO tunnel) cut directly across the route of the Thames Tunnel route. BT have concerns that their tunnels may collapse which could result in enormous consequential loss. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Morris
"I am concerned about the implications of this project in the Shad Thames Conservation area, London SE1"
Non-Statutory Organisations
North & East London Branch, Inland Waterways Association (North & East London Branch, Inland Waterways Association)
"The Inland Waterways Association, formed in 1946 as a registered charity, campaigns for the Conservation, Use, Maintenance, Restoration and Development of all Inland Waterways. Our members use the Thames for a range of recreational purposes. 1. We have long been concerned about the huge volume of untreated sewage that overflow into the river after as little as 2mm of rainfall. Such levels of pollution are entirely unacceptable and adversely impact on our members lives. 2. The Water Framework Directive requires the UK Government to improve the water quality of the Thames. The Thames Tunnel Project is vital if the Thames is to comply with environmental legislation and meet EC water quality standards. 3. The IWA supports the use of 'enviromentally friendly' water freight. The waterside sites to be used for the Thames Tunnel construction offer the ideal facility for transporting Spoil Out by Water and Tunnel Linings into these sites. The construction project itself , lasting seven years, will create over 9000 jobs. Something that is greatly needed at this time of high unemployment. 4. Action to Clean Up the Thames is long overdue. Our members witness first hand and deplore the raw sewage that regularly pollutes the tidal Thames. The issue of sewage discharges must be tackled effectively and without further delay in order to meet the needs of resident's health,the needs of the natural ebnvironment, wildlife and biodiversity and for the continuing use of the river for amenity,education, community and national events, transport and tourism. Conclusion. Our members strongly support the building of the Thames Tideway Tunnel, as proposed by Thames Water, as the only practical way to quickly halt the continued pollution of the Tidal River. We believe that the environmental impacts of the construction works can be extensively limited by the effective use of water freight so as to reduce the number of lorry movements to the various construction sites. We strongly recommend the 'panel' incorporate this requirement in making the recommendation to the Secretary of State. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Strand on the Green Sailing Club (Strand on the Green Sailing Club)
"The Strand on the Green Sailing Club was founded in 1946 and has been racing and cruising dinghies on the Thames for almost 70 years. We sail most frequently between Isleworth and Hammersmith, but we also venture as far downstream as Vauxhall Bridge, and in the past we occasionally raced down to Tower Bridge. Sailing often involves capsizes causing members to end up in the water. We are very much aware of the fluctuating quality of the river water and the fact that in times of heavy rainfall the river becomes very polluted with sewage discharges. The Club therefore strongly supports the proposal to remove much of this discharge from the river."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Livett?s Launches Ltd ( Livett?s Launches Ltd)
"Firstly from my perspective as the owner of Putney Pier I have real concerns about: • The Pier being placed inside the proposed work site as highlighted in the Thames Tideway Tunnel application for development consent, location plan. Putney Embankment Foreshore/location plan/book of plans-section 8/DCO-PP-05X-PUTEF-080001. • The effect on the Pier operations and residents during the construction process. • The effect of scour during and after the construction process. • The effect of flushing raw sewage close to residential moorings. • The balance of the design in keeping with the area. • The lack of navigational risk assessment. Secondly from my perspective as the Vice Chairman of the Passenger Boat Association (P.B.A.): • The effect on traffic flows in central London. • Disruption to existing stakeholders. And thirdly from my perspective as a commercial operative (Managing Director of Livett’s Launches Ltd, Thames Luxury Charters Ltd & Bennett’s Barges): • Impact of the project in terms of employment drain from existing stock, creating an inbalance. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cannon Wharf London LLP (Cannon Wharf London LLP)
"We act on behalf of Cannon Wharf London LLP (the “Owner”) who is the Freehold Owner of the 50 sq metres of hard standing referred to in the Book of Reference as Plot XX. The Owner objects to the proposed use of compulsory purchase powers by the applicant to acquire the temporary use of land and/or acquisition of rights over that land. The Owner does not object to the actual proposed project but the acquisition of its land in order to deliver the project. There has been no adequate consultation with the Owner prior to the submission of the application and there is no evidence to demonstrate there is no other alternative route to provide a right hand ingress into the site for traffic. This lack of consultation with the land owner is supported by the London Borough of Lewisham (see the letter of 14 March 2013) where it states that the pre application discussions that were held with the Council did not provide information on any of the proposed routes or alternative sites and that there was not sufficient information to carry out an assessment of the site as required or that the access could be accommodated elsewhere. The Owner’s land forms part of a wider development which has planning permission to deliver a mixed use scheme containing 562 private residential units; 117 affordable units; a 50,000 ft2 business centre and14 commercial units all with associated public realm which is due to be implemented. The affordable housing units on this scheme form part of blocks that will be built out on the 50 sq metres required by the applicant. The wider site forms part of the delivery of much needed housing (including affordable housing) in the Greater London area but also in the London Borough of Lewisham. The inclusion of the 50 sq metres on Plot 22 would prevent the extant planning permission being implemented. The effect on the Owner’s scheme in acquiring this land is not proportionate i.e. in taking the 50 sq metres the development cannot be implemented. Had the applicant complied with its statutory duties and carried out effective consultation with the Owner (as the land owner) then it would have realised that inclusion of this land would prevent the development from being implemented. It is the Owner’s position that this land is not necessary, it has only been included in the limits of deviation for temporary acquisition for construction access onto the site and the applicant has not demonstrated in its application documents that this access could not be provided elsewhere without having to acquire the Owner’s land. The compulsory acquisition of land\rights is a draconian measure and it is up to the applicant to demonstrate the need for the acquisition and that it is in the public interest. The applicant has not demonstrated this in relation Plot XX and therefore to compulsory acquire this land (even temporarily) against the Owner’s will is a breach of its human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
David Gillman
"KING GEORGE'S PARK 1. I wish to register as an interested party because I live in such close proximity to the proposed construction site. 2. I shall wish to make a representation to mitigate the detrimental impact of the work including but not restricted to: noise, air pollution, traffic nuisance and loss of amenity."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Winckworth Sherwood (Winckworth Sherwood) on behalf of Fr Paul Butler
"This relevant representation is made on behalf of Fr Paul Butler, the incumbent of St Paul’s, Deptford. St Paul’s Church and its churchyard are directly affected by Thames Water’s (“TW”) proposal to use Deptford Church Street as a construction site. St Paul’s, a Grade 1 listed building, is the parish church for around 6,000 people. Even with mitigation, TW’s proposal will have a seriously detrimental impact on the life of the parish, the appearance and integrity of the conservation area and on the fabric of St Paul’s and its contents. This is borne in volume 6.1 of the Environmental Statement which acknowledges that the construction impact of the project will be “significant adverse” when measured against the historic environment, noise and vibration, socio-economic, townscape and transport criteria. If consent is granted for the use of the Deptford Church Street site, the following matters must be addressed to ensure that St Paul’s is properly protected: 1. CONSTRUCTION A. Dust Control St Paul’s has recently installed a world-class organ, which is sensitive to dust emissions. The promoter must prepare and implement dust management plans. B. Subsidence The main tideway tunnel is to pass very close to St Paul’s Church, raising concerns about subsidence. TW must provide a bespoke settlement deed to address monitoring and implementation of protective measures. C. Traffic/ Parking St Paul’s holds daily weekday services and several services on Sundays, as well as major community events and regular weddings and funerals. It is vital that TW lorry movements during the construction phase are suspended for half an hour before and after as well as during all services. We note with particular concern that TW has identified a possible need to suspend parking bays on Coffey Street and on Crossfield Street during construction. These are used by worshippers at St Paul’s and TW must provide appropriate alternatives. D. Noise The Environmental Statement assesses the noise impact on St Paul’s to be significant adverse. Noise and vibration mitigation measures must ensure that during services and concerts, construction work with a significant noise impact does not occur. Code of Construction Practice commitments are not enforceable by individual landowners. St Paul’s therefore seeks a direct commitment from TW. E. Loss of income/compensation St Paul’s enjoys a good income from filming, recording and hosting concerts. All these activities, the community work of the church, and even the financial basis of the church itself, are put in jeopardy by the proposed worksite. It is vital that the church is fully compensated for the inevitable loss of income. 2. OPERATION (Access for maintenance) It is recognised that TW will need access for maintenance and servicing purposes and welcomes the assurance that these will be managed to avoid local disruption. Our clients look to TW for a direct commitment that, save in an emergency, it will give St Paul’s at least 2 weeks’ notice of access. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacqueline van Oosterwijk
"I have just moved to an apartment in the area very close to the park and consider it a great breach of the enjoyment of my living as the park is the only true outdoor space we have in the neighbourhood. There are alternatives offered which do not impact as much on the quality of life for the neighbourhood and therefore these should be pursued instead of the proposed destruction of the one open green space we have. This is a densly populated area where a lot of people have no means to travel for holidays etc and therefore the space is even more important."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Winckworth Sherwood (Winckworth Sherwood) on behalf of Parish Council of St Paul's and St Mark's
"This relevant representation is made on behalf of the PCC of St Paul’s with St Mark’s. St Paul’s Church and its churchyard are directly affected by Thames Water’s (“TW”) proposal to use Deptford Church Street as a construction site. St Paul’s, a Grade 1 listed building, is the parish church for around 6,000 people. Even with mitigation, TW’s proposal will have a seriously detrimental impact on the life of the parish, the appearance and integrity of the conservation area and on the fabric of St Paul’s and its contents. This is borne in volume 6.1 of the Environmental Statement which acknowledges that the construction impact of the project will be “significant adverse” when measured against the historic environment, noise and vibration, socio-economic, townscape and transport criteria. If consent is granted for the use of the Deptford Church Street site, the following matters must be addressed to ensure that St Paul’s is properly protected: 1. CONSTRUCTION A. Dust Control St Paul’s has recently installed a world-class organ, which is sensitive to dust emissions. The promoter must prepare and implement dust management plans. B. Subsidence The main tideway tunnel is to pass very close to St Paul’s Church, raising concerns about subsidence. TW must provide a bespoke settlement deed to address monitoring and implementation of protective measures. C. Traffic/ Parking St Paul’s holds daily weekday services and several services on Sundays, as well as major community events and regular weddings and funerals. It is vital that TW lorry movements during the construction phase are suspended for half an hour before and after as well as during all services. We note with particular concern that TW has identified a possible need to suspend parking bays on Coffey Street and on Crossfield Street during construction. These are used by worshippers at St Paul’s and TW must provide appropriate alternatives. D. Noise The Environmental Statement assesses the noise impact on St Paul’s to be significant adverse. Noise and vibration mitigation measures must ensure that during services and concerts, construction work with a significant noise impact does not occur. Code of Construction Practice commitments are not enforceable by individual landowners. St Paul’s therefore seeks a direct commitment from TW. E. Loss of income/compensation St Paul’s enjoys a good income from filming, recording and hosting concerts. All these activities, the community work of the church, and even the financial basis of the church itself, are put in jeopardy by the proposed worksite. It is vital that the church is fully compensated for the inevitable loss of income. 2. OPERATION (Access for maintenance) It is recognised that TW will need access for maintenance and servicing purposes and welcomes the assurance that these will be managed to avoid local disruption. Our clients look to TW for a direct commitment that, save in an emergency, it will give St Paul’s at least 2 weeks’ notice of access. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Inland Waterways Association (The Inland Waterways Association)
"The Inland Waterways Association London region believes action to clean up the tidal Thames is long overdue. We have looked at the main alternative solutions put forward during the past ten years of study and research and have no doubt that the proposal to construct an interceptor sewer diverting sewage overflows away from the river and to proper sewage treatment facilities is the best and most effective short and long term solution. The Inland Waterways Association London region supports such a major project on London's river to improve environmental, recreational and amenity facilities in the area. The 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage that overflow into the tidal River Thames in a typical year, are entirely unacceptable and adversely impact on our members lives. We see this scheme as vital if the Thames is to comply with current environmental legislation and standards. Our members witness at first hand and deplore in the strongest terms the raw sewage which all too regularly pollutes the tidal Thames. We believe the issue of sewage discharging into the River Thames must be tackled effectively for its continuing use for amenity, education, community and national events, transport and tourism. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
The South London Church Fund and Southwark Diocesan Board of Finance (The South London Church Fund and Southwark Diocesan Board of Finance)
"This relevant representation is made on behalf of the PCC of the South London Church Fund and Southwark Diocesan Board of Finance, which is responsible for financing St Paul's Deptford. St Paul’s Church and its churchyard are directly affected by Thames Water’s (“TW”) proposal to use Deptford Church Street as a construction site. St Paul’s, a Grade 1 listed building, is the parish church for around 6,000 people. Even with mitigation, TW’s proposal will have a seriously detrimental impact on the life of the parish, the appearance and integrity of the conservation area and on the fabric of St Paul’s and its contents. This is borne in volume 6.1 of the Environmental Statement which acknowledges that the construction impact of the project will be “significant adverse” when measured against the historic environment, noise and vibration, socio-economic, townscape and transport criteria. If consent is granted for the use of the Deptford Church Street site, the following matters must be addressed to ensure that St Paul’s is properly protected: 1. CONSTRUCTION A. Dust Control St Paul’s has recently installed a world-class organ, which is sensitive to dust emissions. The promoter must prepare and implement dust management plans. B. Subsidence The main tideway tunnel is to pass very close to St Paul’s Church, raising concerns about subsidence. TW must provide a bespoke settlement deed to address monitoring and implementation of protective measures. C. Traffic/ Parking St Paul’s holds daily weekday services and several services on Sundays, as well as major community events and regular weddings and funerals. It is vital that TW lorry movements during the construction phase are suspended for half an hour before and after as well as during all services. We note with particular concern that TW has identified a possible need to suspend parking bays on Coffey Street and on Crossfield Street during construction. These are used by worshippers at St Paul’s and TW must provide appropriate alternatives. D. Noise The Environmental Statement assesses the noise impact on St Paul’s to be significant adverse. Noise and vibration mitigation measures must ensure that during services and concerts, construction work with a significant noise impact does not occur. Code of Construction Practice commitments are not enforceable by individual landowners. St Paul’s therefore seeks a direct commitment from TW. E. Loss of income/compensation St Paul’s enjoys a good income from filming, recording and hosting concerts. All these activities, the community work of the church, and even the financial basis of the church itself, are put in jeopardy by the proposed worksite. It is vital that the church is fully compensated for the inevitable loss of income. 2. OPERATION (Access for maintenance) It is recognised that TW will need access for maintenance and servicing purposes and welcomes the assurance that these will be managed to avoid local disruption. Our clients look to TW for a direct commitment that, save in an emergency, it will give St Paul’s at least 2 weeks’ notice of access. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Duggan
"I wish to object to the Thames Water project. I believe its function has been discredited and as such its construction should not be allowed to proceed and cause inconvenience to London residents including loss of public open spaces. I believe Thames Water is seeking to use it monopoly to pressure London into a de facto acceptance of a project that will ultimately increase already excessive bills. I understand there are other options aside from destroying one of the only local green space areas located next to the Thames in the are and this should be pursued if the project does in fact go ahead, rather than taking a more convenient (from Thames Water's point of view) route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bill Hedley
"As owner of an apartment in a building directly adjacent to the proposed drilling site in Southwark, I wish to object to the application on the grounds that the work will have an unreasonable impact on ourselves and the surrounding community in terms of noise, vibration, pollution, sleep deprivation and dangers to children over an extended period. These are major concerns for a community that has been regenerated over the last 20 years, and the application does not provide sufficient assurance that they have been addressed adequately. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Ward
"Living in close proximity to the development site I believe that the increase in vehicular and plant & machinery traffic will cause excessive, intrusic noise pollution not only for residents but also local schools. Considering that the main Tooley Street is in constant use by Guy's Hospital emergency ambulancies the increased vehicular site traffic will cause additional delays to ambulancies and other emergency services thus putting patients at further risk."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Jervis
"I believe the work involved will create intolerable conditions which will severely impact on the quality of life for the tenants of my property and residents of neighbouring properties. I am unconvinced that the levels of noise and dirt pollution can be controlled and am quite sure that the effects on this local area of Southwark will be disastrous for many years. There appears to have been little consideration for the fact that this is a densely populated residential area with many families and young children. It seems an ill conceived project with far more disadvantages than potential benefits. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Ovenell
"The use of Chambers Wharf as a main drive site for the super sewer, located in the middle of a quiet, densely populated residential area is irresponsible when other viable options are available. Abbey Mills is a viable alternative, already used successfully for the construction of the Lee Tunnel and openly understood by Thames Water to be able to facilitate the removal of sufficient spoil to support the super sewer tunnelling. Tunnelling from the residential area of Chambers Wharf on the other hand would cause health and safety concerns for hundreds if not thousands of people and the site itself would need to be increased in size into the Thames to cope with the construction works, further disrupting the environment. The arguments I have heard at City Hall meetings from Thames Water appear to centre around an increase in project costs in using other sites such as Abbey Mills, rather than these sites not being workable. I would suggest that the costs associated with using an alternative site would be a price worth paying to avoid the health and safety issues to be incurred by local residents, school children and the environment for such a long period. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr John Padfield
"I agree that significant improvement is required to deal with London's sewerage. I disagree with the proposal made by Thames Water. The proposal does not utilise alternatives that have been proven to work in other cities and that would significantly reduce the impact on the communities in Bermondsey, Southwark and Tower Hamlets, while still delivering on the ultimate objective of improving London's sewerage and the cleanliness of the river. The proposal will have a major adverse impact on the health of the residents close to the chosen work sites, the health of the children, teachers and other staff who attend and work at facilities in close proximity to the chosen work sites, the safety of all residents and visitors to the Bermondsey and Southwark areas due to the significantly increased level of HGV traffic, not just in the immediate vicinity of the sites but in the transport routes leading to and from them. There is much evidence of serious, often fatal, accidents affecting cyclists and pedestrians in London and this proposal will result in additional serious injuries and fatalities in the narrow and congested streets in Bermondsey and Southwark. The environmental impact of noise, dust and light pollution in all surrounding areas, including Wapping across the river, will be significant and will lead to significant impact on individuals' and families' sleep patterns (whether day or night workers or those retired and ill). It is well documented that poor sleep patterns have an adverse long term effect on individual's health, and so the individual and the NHS will have to bear this impact. Additionally. London's river is a major tourist attraction and the transport artery for much traffic. The presence of a significant obstacle (the dam) stretching a long way into the river will exacerbate the environmental impact on residents in Wapping and, could lead to a significant accident in the narrower river. Other cities such as Tokyo have utilised different tunnelling technology to deal with the sub-structure such as that present beneath London and should be used if it will improve the environmental impact. This is a major project for London, its residents and its visitors. A solution must ne be found that looks at the overall VALUE to everyone, and not just the cost to Thames Water and its shareholders. Residents are going to bear additional costs of water for a solution that has an adverse impact on them. Thames Water should be required to find a solution that provides better value, through a beneficial - not a detrimental - impact on the residents and ensure that the NHS will not have to bear additional costs through the knock-on effects of the proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward Cartwright
"This project will have a direct affect on where I live, making it noisier, more polluted and mean that the moorings that I live on will cease to exist. It is a part of the river and the city that I have fallen in love with and to have a project that is not to certain succeed and which will cause such a disruption to so many people is not the right answer."
Members of the Public/Businesses
GLEN SMITH
"I am extremely concerned about the planned site for a number of reasons, I work from home 50% of the time and the noise generated from the site and vibrations made will make this extremely difficult to conduct business conference calls during the day. Also sleep deprivation may be an issue as I work different hours to most people. Additionally I am very worried about the increase in traffic and lorry noise as well as access and environmental concerns for the children in the schools nearby. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Glenn Benson
"I do not belive the sewer is necessary. This prominent riverside site deserves to used for something better than what is proposed. If the scheme goes ahead, the structure that remains above the entrance to the tunnel should be designed to be a thing of beauty, not just functional. The sdtructure that is left will be seen by rivers users for a long time to come. If we allow an ugly functional blot to be left we will regret it. Again if the structure is built the riverside space around should be made into a public open space affording riverside access. If the community ha to suffer noise and disruption for anumber of years, at least at the end of there shouild be a tangible benfit to the local community. A legacey to the neighbourhood. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Cathryn Marsden
"I live next to Chambers Wharf and my bedroom window overlooks the site. The proposed works will have a profound impact on my life. It will impact my finances and my quality of life. I do not think it is necessary to have a site in Southwark. They can use the drive site from Abbey Mills. We have also seen that Thames Water have not met their obligations and when they have been on site we have been having serious noise problems. For example, a generator was placed on the site right next to where they knew people were sleeping and I could not sleep all night because of it. Thames Water said they knew it was too loud when they put it there but their security guards need electricity. This is just one example of their attitude. Their proposed provisions to minimise the noise are inadequate and also the funding and cost of the project is a huge scandal. It should not be allowed in such a dense residential area particularly when there are cheaper and better alternatives eg: using Abbey mills."
Members of the Public/Businesses
PJ MIllsr on behalf of Jacqueline Carol Freeman
"This plan will impose unsustainable levels of congestion on Jamaica Road where traffic is already brought to a standstill for long periods twice a day. The road is heavily congested and has topped national surveys as the country's most gridlocked. Additional heavy construction traffic would impose an insupportable burden on the surrounding streets and environment. In addition the Chamber Wharf site is overly close to a densely populated area of successful mixed accommodation which it would blight. The work proposed would also be seriously deleterious to the health and well-being of children at a school in its immediate proximity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Franks
"I agree that a solution needs to be found to ensure that the Thames is kept clean and safe. I do not agree that any solution should require a drive site at Chambers Wharf. Any benefit in using this location is massively outweighed by the disadvantages it will have socially, economically and most importantly the detrimental effect it will have on the hundreds of children being educated in the immediate area. A drive site at Abbey Mills is a sounder alternative. With all the lorry movements in Chambers Wharf and the immediate area it will cause traffic chaos, continous noise, road vibrations which will damage properties and invariably be a hazard to children and parents when crossing roads. When will someone realise that the needs of a large community is actually more important than the profits of a huge company that obviously could not care less."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Craven
"The site that is the subject of the application is very close to a number of schools and a residential area. The proposal will cause severe disruption to all those who live, work or are taught in the area. There will be severe noise pollution, 24 hours a day at times, a dramatic increase in the number of heavy vehicles using the area leading to vehicle pollution and increased danger for pedestrians and other road users. I understand that Thames Water could meet their legal obligations without completing the whole Thames Tunnel - if they completed half of it, they would still meet the requirements at much lower cost. Hence their motivation would appear to be financially driven, as by spending more now, they can charge higher bills and make higher profits in the future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Richard Layton
"This project is clearly needed and I support it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Justin Gallagher
"there has not been sufficient due consideration given to more ecologically sound alternatives. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Walker
"There is proof and evidence that there are alternatives. Community should come before profit, the people who will benefit are the overseas investors and yet this is being paid for by London Residents. The dust will affect the residents and the schools. There are alternatives that would not affect these people"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kate Byrne Weir
"I am completely against the chosen location for the super sewer on environmental and health grounds. There are other options available. It will destroy our community and our environment. It will disrupt the lives of many local children and have a profound effect on health and noise pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Kirby
"This scheme has not been thought through adequately, and Thames have obviously decided to go ahead with this purely for their own financial reasons. As customers will have to pay for this for years via increased water bills, surely there should have been much more consultation with regard to this. There are other schemes which would give better results at a cheaper cost, and with much less local disruption. As it is, this scheme is being fobbed off on a heavily residential area, with two schools literally next door - the disruption, noise, and pollution will go on for years. This is not purely a nimby objection. If this was the only option then I would reluctantly accept, but there are other solutions which have been rejected out of hand and without any consultation with customers and residents, I strongly object."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Dexter
"There is a much better site to be used where there are less schools and housing around. The disruption with noise and dust should not be allowed in such a built up area, especially for 7 years!!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martina Fowler
"I have two children aged 7 and 10 who currently attend   School,   Street,   , a high-achieving state primary at which they are thriving and are very happy. The staff there work so hard to achieve great results in an inner-city environment in which some of the pupils come from difficult and/or deprived backgrounds, and are bound to be extremely demoralised by the inevitable noise and disruption caused by the supersewer works. I am concerned about my sons' progress at the school, as well as for the other pupils, and those at the two other schools very close to the Chambers Wharf site. When I moved into the area, nearly eleven years ago, Chambers Wharf was still full of disused warehouses, but since then it has become a residential area, and I really feel for those people who invested in property in that street. As a leaseholder, I am also concerned on the impact the Thames supersewer may have on the value of my property. I am a single, working mother, and the flat represents my only real capital. Added to this, of course, the fact that the proposed works will ruin the enjoyment so many people get from walking through one of the most historic parts of London. Thank you for your attention."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Peter John Millar
"The planned use of Chambers Wharf will be wholly deleterious to a large area of North Bermondsey which will blight both the neighbouring school and costly regeneration schemes now coming to fruition. It will at a single stroke undo decades of work by Southwark Council and developers to transform a run-down part of London into a thriving community. The proposed use of Jamaica Road for transport is wholly unacceptable given that the road has recently been cited by GPS monitoring systems as Britain's most congested road (http://www.ramtracking.com/news/time-moves-slowly-for-britain-s-rush-hour-drivers.html) with often stationary traffic at peak times. Thames Water's plans would make this important thoroughfare for southeast London all but unusable. The use of Chambers Wharf as site for a major construction project of this sort is wholly inappropriate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Rhoderick Voremberg
"The flat which I own jointly with other members of my family and occupy jointly with them is within 100metres of the Chambers Wharf site and I am deeply concerned that the proposed construction works will cause noise, vibration and potentially structural damage to   Wharf and many other properties nearby such that throughout the construction period or much of it our flat will be more or less uninhabitable. I consider that such major construction work for such a long period in the heart of a residential area is totally inappropriate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Swinbank
"I own property in   Court and this development would destroy the local community and cause immeasurable inconvenience to all in the Chambers Wharf area. Schools would be affected, as would the lives of thousands of local residents for years. Other solutions must be sought and this absurd development stopped."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Norman Devlin FRICS
"I strongly object to this development in its proposed location"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Putney Society (Putney Society)
"Our principal concern is to ensure that there is an appropriate post-construction legacy at both the Barn Elms and Putney Bridge CSO construction sites. We are concerned that otherwise there will be lasting damage to the iconic and beautiful Putney Embankment area, known to millions as the start of the Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race and many other rowing and sailing events. The location and shape of the legacy permanent structures are a concern for us and we will seek to persuade Thames Water to improve their designs. A further concern is the level of disruption from the construction sites in terms of the impact on local residents and businesses, increased road traffic and potential impacts on the local environment including air quality."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Ghenchev
"The proposed construction will cause intolerable disturbance (noise, vibration, pollution, sleep deprivation, dangers to children studying in nearby schools) to the people living in the area and the visitors walking along the Thames path. The construction is also proposed to last for an extended period that is not acceptable given its immediate proximity to residential buildings and that this such an important tourist route. Finally, I do not consider the site to be big enough for its proposed purpose - the fact that they will need to expand the site into the river (which would be embarrassingly ugly sight not just for the neighbours and passers-by, but also the people taking the Thames Clippers and tourist boats on the river) speaks for itself. I insist that Thames Water uses a brownfield site elsewhere which would be far more suitable for this purpose."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Russell Pheasey
"There are credible NON RESIDENTIAL alternatives to Chambers Wharf Seven years of construction affecting thousands of residents is unacceptable It will affect and destroy quality of life for residents and business"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Suk Goh
"Thames Water has indicate that there is a subsoil acquisition of part of my garden land. I am concern about how it will affect my property's structure, my daily routine at home (eg. noise & dust pollution) and any adjustments that I have to plan ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wai Ka CHAN
"What exactly is removal of 33 sqm of subsoil below my flat?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Howe
"Disagree due to impact on local residents "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Yana Dostinova
"The proposed construction will cause intolerable disturbance (noise, vibration, pollution, sleep deprivation, dangers to children studying in nearby schools) to the people living in the area and the visitors walking along the Thames path. The construction is also proposed to last for an extended period that is not acceptable given its immediate proximity to residential buildings and that this such an important tourist route. Finally, I do not consider the site to be big enough for its proposed purpose - the fact that they will need to expand the site into the river (which would be embarrassingly ugly sight not just for the neighbours and passers-by, but also the people taking the Thames Clippers and tourist boats on the river) speaks for itself. I insist that Thames Water uses a brownfield site elsewhere which would be far more suitable for this purpose."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Knowles
"I do not think there should be a major construction site in Southwark. I am very concerned about the huge length of time the proposed works are scheduled. I am therefore concerned about the impact on my life and any others specifically from pollution, noise, vibration. sleep deprivation and danger to my health generally over the period."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alexander Veness
"Supported by a great deal of research and resulting, alternative plans for an equally effective sewer that would not blight Southwark, I strongly believe that Southwark is unsuitable as a major construction site to form a component of the proposed super sewer. I am very concerned about the heavy impact this development would undoubtedly have on all members of my household (myself, my partner and our two children, 6 and 9 years old). Predominant among the list of harmful impacts are: noise; vibration; pollution; sleep deprivation, and dangers to children."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Avshalom Caspi
"this project will have devastatingly adverse effects on my property and well being. during the works already carried out in demolishing chambers wharf i suffered respiratory problems. the proposed project would jeopardize my health and ability to live in my flat. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Atkinson
"I think the proposed development will place an unreasonable burden on the local residents in terms of noise pollution, dirt, restrictions on access and movement and the adverse effects on child safety with several schools a short distance from the site. I don't think that alternatives have been adequately considered. The duration of the proposed work will blight the area and ruin the lives of residents for years."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr. Rita Cruise OBrien
"My flat overlooks Chambers Wharf at a distance of a meter from the perimeter fence. It is a site which Thames Water are proposing to use as one of the main drive sites of the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The impact will be intolerable. All of my windown, including two bedrooms overlook the site on the west side where they are proposing to work 24/7 for three years after building a coffer dam 50m into the Thames which will in itself raise intolerable impact. The centrifuge of the spoil (also under my windows) and the removal of spoil by conveyor to barge is proposed to operate 24/7 for three years. The information I have received from Thames Water about impact mitigation seriously underestimates the noise impact , according to reputable acousticians. Their environment impact statement, which we requested for the last 18 mos. was only finally delivered in the DCO. Surely this flies in the face of due process. Together with the arrangement with Berkeley Homes to redevelop the site when Thames Water have completed their seven year tenure of work, I shall be 86 years old when the site under the windows of my flat will finally cease to be a major building site. Thames Water have totally ignored the devastating impact to this densely populated community with more residents closer to the works site, I believe, than any other site they have earmarked for construction. We also have one of the leading primary schools in the country on the only access road to the site with an estimated 65,000 lorry journeys down Bevington Street in front of Riverside Primary School with the attendant noise and atmospheric pollution impact on small children about which there is much academic research. We expect the Inspectorate to consider the totally inadequate study and consideration Thames Water has made on the impact on this comminity. SURELY this is a main purpose of the Inspectorate. There is a serious alternative to the blight to the community for seven yers. Time and time again I have been told by the Head of TTT and their Chief Engineer that Chambers Wharf is "convenient" for them. But engineers ought to be professional enough to work out alternatives which mitigate devastating community impact. The N.P.S. required it! In Phase One of the consultation, TW vaunted their 26 acre pumping station at Abbey Mills in Bow as a wonderful option for driving the Tunnel in the eastern sector. Their was very little complaint by the local residents in Newham work at the site, which includes the current coinstruction of the Lea Tunnel has very little local impact. They offered a comparison with Chambers Wharf in the DCO, but never completed a full environmental impact study at Abbey Mills because of their "convenience!" Surely a wold class company setting out an application for a major infrastructure project could have found more competent engineers to weigh up the alternatives. What they have done flies in the face both of due process and the requirements of the N.P.S. on Waste Water. We ask the Inspectors to seriously consider the impact on Chambers Wharf and the alternatives to blighting the lives of this commuinity for seven years."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eileen Khoo
"1) I have lived in the area for 12 years, one of the greatest attractions is the peace, greenery and quietness - this would be destroyed if this proposal is approved by the government 2) There are alternative sites to Chambers Wharf - Chambers Wharf is highly unsuitable as a site, as it is right in the middle of a residential area, is a prime riverside location and opposite the Riverside School (which I live next to) - the 7+ years of construction work would cause noise, dust, sound pollution, which is detrimental to the schoolchildren and all of us residents 3) Chambers Wharf was originally ear-marked as a residential development site (e.g. leisure facilities for the community, new flats) - we were all looking forward to this, instead we get a super-sewer - totally not appropriate for the area 4) The proposed development is not only going to impact our lives for seven years, but for the REST of our lives, as it will permanently blight the area and therefore affect property values. Bermondsey has historically been a poor, under-privileged area and through the efforts of Southwark council I have seen the area gradually improve over the past decade. Approving this super-sewer would reverse ALL the strides forward that were hard-achieved in the past 10-15 years - which is a real shame and very short-sighted. 5) The Thames proposal is not even the most effective solution for rainwater run-off management. The Government should consider other more environmental and cost-friendly solutions. 6) Jamaica Road is a very busy road - this development will essentially block up traffic even further for the next 7+ years. In summary, if the Government approves this, it will be DEVASTATING to us, the local community. Please, please, please do not fall in with Thames Water, there are alternative solutions versus turning Chambers Wharf into a sewer!!! Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Guest
"My flat is situated next to the proposed site, this is a residential area and I totally disagree with the proposed construction at Chambers St. My concerns revolves around the noise from 24 hour Construction, this will include vibration and the movement of vehicles. With 24 hour construction sleep deprivation is also going to be a concern. Most recently a silent generator on the site was replaced for 24 hours with a standard one, the noise and the disturbance was unbearable. When this is magnified by a whole construction site, operating 24 hrs a day, the disruption to normal life will effect my health. This is also a residential area with a normal of local schools based near the proposed site, my concern is also about the safety of young children as they travel to school. noise, vibration, pollution, sleep deprivation, dangers to children etc.). "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeffrey Ford
"As a resident of   Court overlooking this site, I am concerned about the noise, vibration, pollution, sleep deprivation and environmental dangers to my children that this work will cause. I understand the need for this sewer but I believe that Chambers Wharf in Southwark does not need to be the site for this, given the availability of other sites which are not in such close proximity to so many schools and residences. Kind regards Jeffrey Ford"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Watts
"i feek the super sewew will have a detremebtal affect on my childs school.which is located directly behind tue proposed site ..the noise heavy lorry traffic and disruption to their school days are far greater than the need for this super sewer...i would like for you to take my views on this matter into account when considering the plans for the super sewer...which is going to have a major impact in   school ,its pupils,parents and the surrounding community.thank yiu karen watts parent to   ..pupil at   primary school .."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Bernadette Whitley
"The proposed sewerage development is not appropriate in the small community of Shad Thames because of the disruption, noise and the intrusion into the peaceful enjoyment of our homes that it will cause, the latter being a fundamental human right that should not be eroded. The sewerage development should be located somewhere else that is not in such close proximity to residential dwellings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Davis
"We live adjacent to the KEMP and the foreshore which will be directly affected by the application. The use of Glamis Road for lorry access will be hugely detrimental to the safety of our access road. The noise and air pollution will also be considerable. Further, use of and access to the KEMP and foreshore will be heavily restricted for several years if the current plans are agreed. There will also be a detrimental effect on the operations of the Shadwell Boat Club which uses the Basin for recreational and training purposes. The value of the properties, including our own, will also be affected by the proposed plans for the tunnel. The closure of the public footpath will also be detrimental to the many walkers, runners and children and families who use the path on a daily basis for pleasure, recreation or access to the park. The lower part of Glamis road is also a popular tourist area with coaches stopping off on an almost daily basis for viewing of Shadwell Basin, Wapping Pumping Station and the historic Prospect of Whitby public House. This tourism could be damaged by the proposals."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Monique Van Der Linden
"7 years of 24/7 work has a huge impact on living close to the side. Although the work is done in a shaft, the pumping up of the soil will be a constant noise heard miles away from the site. I forsee problems to sleep and also will be unable to sit on my balcony and relax. Trucks coming and going will create noise but also polution. The resedential area where the site is planned is not suitable for this work done 24/7 for 7 years. It will mean that all residents will have less joy in life for 7 years. It is especially the lengt of time and intensity, that make it unbearable for the residents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr R Gilmore
"The proposal does not comply with EU law and is deficient by a number of measures. The primary legislation it seeks to comply with is the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive that was adopted on 21 May 1991. The proposal fails to comply on more than one count. The European Court of Justice has found the UK government guilty of non-compliance with the Directive. Infraction fines have not yet been set however; the EU Water Commissioner is reported to be seeking infraction fines of 2Bn Euro. It would be negligent of the IPC to grant permission for a proposal that would result in non-compliance for another decade. It would also result in fines that the government will incur and that all UK tax payers will have to pay without further consultation. One requirement of the UWWTD is a solution using "best technical knowledge not entailing excessive cost". Evidence has been gathered that proves the tunnel proposal does not comply with the directive on both counts. It would be negligent of the IPC to grant permission for this proposal in the knowledge that the proposal does not comply with the law it seeks to comply with and to the detriment of all UK citizens. The consultations carried out by Thames Water in promotion of their application were deficient on a number of counts including matters of equality. 1. False data, incomplete data and false assertions have been used by Thames Water in promotion of their application. 2. The majority of the 5.26 million Thames Water customer who will be expected to pay for the financial consequences of permission being granted for this application have not been consulted. It would be negligent of the IPC to grant permission without those directly affected citizens being consulted. 3. Thames Water have been negligent by failing to publish information or consult with the majority of Londoners for whom English is not their first language. 4. Thames Water have withheld information from the public in defiance of the Aarhus Convention to which the UK is a signatory. It would be negligent of the IPC to grant permission for this application in the knowledge that information has been unreasonably withheld."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Golson
"As a parent with a 2 year old child I dread the thought of the area she grows up in being blighted by this proposed development. She will be at risk from the resultant air pollution as well as at much greater risk of traffic accidents from the grossly inappropriate lorry traffic that will blight residential roads and make her probable journey to school a daily dangerous nightmare. In essence the development is not suitable for what is now a heavily residential area and the problems of 24-hour working and the enormous quantities of waste removal have not been solved satisfactorily. To permit such a project at such close proximity to a thriving primary school would be a gross dereliction of responsibility to the children attending."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Pateman
"My view is that it is inconceivably wrong-headed to address an environmental issue by throwing an environmentally unfriendly solution at it, all to make heaps of money for an overseas Australian bank and other overseas investors at the expense of a large swathe of the British public. Why throw cement at a project when cement has been a primary cause in terms of run-off rainwater from cemented surfaces causing an otherwise very well-built sewer system to overspill? The same problems affect Paris and Berlin. In both cities, they are not choosing to build a gargantuan cement tunnel, especially when such a solution as been proved to fail in Milwaukee and Philadelphia. It is an outdated response. A 20th century solution to a 21st century dilemma. Who, in their right mind, would subject large swathes of the London community to such extensive disturbance, disruption and pollution unnecessarily? Take note from the experiences of our American cousins. Such a scheme will be unbearably costly at a time of challenged UK domestic finances, all for the profit of investors in faraway parts of the globe. Please let's learn from what's gone before, and from the enlightened solutions followed by the likes of Berlin."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Spain
"I am a tenant in   Wharf in Wapping and object to the project as it will create a severely unpleasant living scenario for all local residents (noise and air pollution)!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pat Crawford
"Whilst I accept the need to address the serious deficiencies in the sewer systems in London, I do not believe the choice of site is appropriate. I believe a site should be chosen that is not in close proximity to schools, communities, people's homes and businesses. I'm sure there are other river locations that can be found that are more isolated from existing developments and people. I also believe that the consequences of round the clock working and resultant noise will place an intolerable strain on people living nearby. It is possible to hear underground trains and City and Heathrow planes alongside riverboats and helicopters from the existing nearby locations. I cannot believe that, in a quiet night time location, when people should be sleeping, the noise will be sufficiently masked. Any noise/ vibration will disturb sleep. The impact on roads and infrastructure alongside the London Bridge redevelopment will place an undue burden and nuisance on local people and businesses already trying to cope with constant disruption. I am not yet convinced this is the right solution for the sewer problem. I don't believe it is the right solution in terms of location. It is not the right solution in terms of round the clock working."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Perry Phillips
"I object strongly to the siting of major building works in a densely populated area which is also next to many schools. The building site will produce noise, vibrations and light pollution on a 24 hour basis over an extended period making life unbearable for local residents and school children. I do not believe that it will be possible for Thames Water to mitigate the impact of the building work sufficiently so that local residents can continue to enjoy the peaceful occupation of their homes. I am also concerned that Thames Water have not provided enough clear and objective information about the real impact this will have on local residents lives i.e. an independent noise and vibration survey. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Fuller
"I am concerned about the impact the development will have on the local community. My household may be affected with noise pollution. The area will become less desirable in terms of a functional commercial district and all those other companies that serve it. As a resident of this area I cannot understand the placement of these works when there are alternative areas that would have a far less environmental and community impact. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Robin
"My interest relates to Barn Elms. 1. Paragraph 6.2.5 of the Transport Statement (Document Reference 7.10.03) states that all materials will be transported to and from the site by road, during a 26 month construction period. It surprising that the river is not being used to take away spoil and deliver construction materials. The Environmental Statement relating to Barn Elms (Document reference 6.2.06) makes no reference to why this option was not considered as a way to mitigate impact of construction traffic. Using the river would help to reduce traffic movements both locally and further afield in London. A temporary pontoon could be constructed, and deliveries planned to take place near high tide. 2. It is indicated the route of construction vehicles will be via Barnes Railway Bridge on Rocks Lane. Measures need to be included (in a Travel Plan or legal agreement) to ensured this is adhered to. Whilst there are HGV restrictions on the Terrace, lorries sometimes flout this as it provides easier access to the main road network, in particular the M4/M3. 3. It is stated that working hours will be 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 on Saturday, with additional working outside these hours to facilitate particular operations such as concrete pouring. No working should take place on Saturdays as this will conflict with users of Barn Elms Sports facilities and Queen Elizabeth Walk. In addition, a mechanism need to be imposed to control exceptional working beyond 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday, to ensure this is not abused. 4. It is stated that no parking will be provided for construction workers and due to parking restrictions in the area, it is anticipated they will arrive by public transport. Whilst there are restrictions from 0800 to 1830 from Monday to Saturday in Zone CB, this covers a small area only. Beyond - and within easy walking distance of the site - is Zone B1, where restrictions are 1000 to Noon Monday to Friday only. It is likely that some workers may arrive outside these hours and therefore create additional pressure on residents parking. Therefore provision needs to be made in the Travel Plan or a legal agreement to ensure that construction workers do not travel to the site by car. This might include a clause in their employment contracts, and provision needs to be made for this to be monitored by Richmond Council, witht he costs covered by Thames Water. In conclusion, it is appreciated that there will inevitably be some inconvenience and impact, but this is outweighed by the significant benefit of reducing polution in the River Thames. However, proviosions need to be made to minimise the impact as far as possible, and I hope my suggestions above will be implemented."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon Freeman
"Hello I live at Queen Elizabeth Street and I am simply interested in being informed about progress of the tunnel. thank you"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thamesfield Ward Councillors (Thamesfield Ward Councillors)
"As Putney riparian ward councillors, we are concerned that a number of matters are properly addressed on behalf of the people of Putney as follows : It is essential that the times and days during which work is undertaken is strictly adhered to and enforced in accordance with local policies, ie 8am to 6pm on Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturday. No Sunday working. In emergencies work outside these hours should only be with the consent of the Director of Environmental & Community Services, Wandsworth Borough Council. Appropriate measures should be taken to prevent noise and to suppress dust. The contractors must use the river for the removal of spoil and transportation of materials at all times. If this is not feasible, movements by road should be restricted to between 10am and 4pm and only prescribed routes should be used. No more than 10% of spoil and materials should be by road. No vehicles in excess of 10t ULW and articulated vehicles should be used. No contractors vehicles should be permitted to use Putney High Street and Glendarvon Street, London SW15. Due consideration must be given to the river wall adjacent to St Mary’s Church, Putney Wharf, Deodar Road residences and Wandsworth Park. Surveys must be undertaken in advance of any work starting and these river walls restored to their pre-existing condition at the conclusion of the work by the contractor and at their expense. Residents are looking to see a long-lasting legacy in the form of improved public facilities throughout the area of work between Putney Bridge and The Embankment at the junction with Glendarvon Street. There must be no parking dispensations for contractor’s private vehicles The pedestrian tow path between Beverley Brook and Queen Elizabeth Walk must remain open for pedestrians and cyclists at all time Consideration must be given at all times to services operated from Putney Pier by Thames Clippers, upon which many Putney residents depend "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Moore
"I am a local resident (on a boat nearby) with a child at   next door to Chambers Wharf. My concern is primarily about the huge level of road traffic which is likely to result from work at Chambers Wharf - and the effect this will have on the school and the children's journeys to/from school, in terms of road safety, pollution and noise. I also remain to be convinced that such a massive infrastructure is really required essentially to handle stormwater. The problem is that when it rains the sewers overflow into the river. Why not just divert rainwater straight into the river, instead of the sewers?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alex Bagguley
"As a local resident and school teacher I would like to examine the potential impact of these proposals in regards to - outdoor space for local residents - community space for sports and recreation - access to outdoors for local children - play space and facilities for local children - travel for residents to and from Wapping to canary wharf along the river - sustained building work in the heart of our community"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Nugee
"I am a resident in Parsons Green, so constantly use the Wandsworth Bridge Rd as route south across the river, shopping street, etc. Our children were all at school off the Wandsworth Bridge Rd. I am wholly against the construction, noise, traffic, and related disruptions that the super-sewer would bring with it. It will be dangerous and unpleasant for our children for years, possibly the majority of their childhood."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anouk Cruttenden
"I find the use of chambers wharf by Thames Water in any way shape or form totally unacceptable to the local residents and environment. Thames Water is a private profit making company and should not be impacting london in the manner in which is plans. The Super Sewer, in its current form is over-engineered. It needs to be downsized and drilled from a location outside central london, such as Abbey Mills, so as not to impact local environment or residents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Benjamin Berenson
"I wish to communicate my objection to the planned Thames Tideway Tunnel project at King Edward Memorial Park on the following grounds: 1: I am a property owner and resident in the Wapping area. For virtually all of the residents in the area (especially those with young children such as myself) King Edward Memorial Park (KEMP) is a vital green space for the community--in an area whose unique geography and development history (riverside warehouses) limits the amount of parks and similar amenities. Development such as the proposed Thames Tideway Tunnel would irrevocably damage KEMP and consequently have a deleterious effect on residents in the Wapping area. 2: Thames Water, in my view, have failed to provide adequate evidence that other brownfield sites are unworkable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bruce Adams
"I am the grandfather of four children who attend Riverside Primary School which is adjacent to the Chambers Wharf site. Two of the four children will still be at this school for another five years, while another will still be at this school for another three years. My concern is the effects on the health and education of these children during the construction phase caused by noise, dust and emissions from construction machinery."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Mallia
"The proposed build will not only effect myself & the property I live in during the build phase but after due to : the extra traffic congestion whilst building & after , the smell that will at times waft over dependant on weather conditions , the loss of value of the property I live in due to the close proximity to the proposed sewer . The cost which will be bourne by all local water users for a project that has been proven to be both non effective & uneconomicaly viable by many experts . Those living in Barnes & Mortlake did not want this on their door step & succesfully stopped the build hence the attempt to foist it on the Fulham area , a already densely populated & congested area with many schools, business' & homes very close to the proposed sewer site all of which will suffer both financialy & in quality of life . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Damiano Cimignolo
"I do not understand how can a Council invest billions of pounds to requalify an area (see Bermondsey Spa), trying to improve the quality of life of people in a rather diverse and sometimes depressed area, and even consider allowing the construction of an industrial site of this kind The Bermondsey area is slowly trying to improve its image and reputation, but it seems that some people prefer it to be the place foreigner/not local "would not dare to go to", as it was just few years back Location is incredibly wrong (close to schools, residential buildings and the Tower Bridge landmark) and not even large enough (there will be need for a "river infill") What has been claiming by Thames Water in terms of impact (no smell, limited disruption) not only is impossible to prove but it is just a mere promise. Even the independent report published mentioned the disruptive nature of the project The project is an important one for London, but the location does not make any sense Bottom line, the sites ticks all the wrong boxes and the community SHOULD not pay the price for a commercially-only driven decision. The Council/Mayor should take decisions in the communities' best interest, and it is not conceivable to believe this project is in any way going in this direction. All the other available options should be taken into account "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Kaspar
"I strongly object to the planning due to the points below: The noise, vibration and pollution from the intense and long construction phase. The sleep deprivation due to noise. The congestion in our area and the increased dangers to children due to heavy construction traffic. The disastrous effect on our property value. The disregard for cheaper and smaller projects that could be just as beneficial "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Parker
"I feel that undertaking such a significant engineering project in an incredibly densely populated residential area is completely inappropriate. All the other sites have some degree of distance between the site and the nearest residences, whereas Chambers Wharf has residential developments that literally overhang the border of the site - this is unheard of in these types of project. Additionally, the Chambers Wharf site had planning for a residential development, and it is inexcusable that this site was allowed (through loopholes) to be purchased by Thames Water as opposed to another property developer."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek Gassyt
"I operate my business directly across the road from the Canham Rd. site. I have rights to a parking spot in the parking lot beside the western edge of the overflow tanks, the parking lot that Thames water purposes to half occupy. From what I've seen and been told, parking on the street, parking in the lot, access to our delivery doors onto Canham Rd. will be disrupted for a lengthy period of time. I have deliveries coming and going daily, vans and lorries loading and unloading goods and materials to my workshop. The parking currently available on Canham Rd. is inadequate, the changes to that that Thames Water is suggesting, or requesting will make our situation very difficult. For the reasons I've described above I have grave concerns that this project will have a severe impact on the day to day running of my business. The volume of noise, dust, and vehicles are of great concern to me as well."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eraldo Datri
"I disagree with the planning application and, in particular, with the use of the Chambers Wharf site. I am particularly concerned with the noise, vibration, pollution, and sleep deprivation which we are likely to endure in our neighborhood for at least 7 years due to the constant construction works to be had there. As a result of the works, the value of my property is likely to be reduced as compared to if Chambers Wharf were not used as a site. I am also concerned because the Chambers Wharf site is very close to Riverside Primary School and the number of lorries going through the site will be dangerous for their health and safety. I am also concerned that the Thames Pathway will be effectively blocked for over 7 years. I understand there are reasonable alternatives which would not involve highly residential areas such as Chamebrs Wharf."
Members of the Public/Businesses
George Ellis
"Significant increases in Noise and Air pollution Major impact on the local community including disruption, noise and potential reductions in property values Significant increase in traffic. An unattractive legacy when complete Creating a more industrial area over the medium term as the development is undertaken. This will all be happening as numerous other projects will all be wrestling for space and creating impacts on the local infrastructure which is served by small local roads and a single bridge. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geraldine Higson
"I am a Fulham resident. I am extremely concerned at the disruption and pollution that this project will undoubtedly inflict on the residents of Fulham. Fulham is primarily a residential area with a high density population and I know from daily experience that the local roads are frequently log jammed at both the morning and evening rush hours and also at school opening and closing times. Furthermore, I do not believe that this sewer is the only solution to the sewage overlow. It is not environmentally friendly and will be hugely expensive. As you are aware, there are alternatives. Finally, please do not forget that this project is bank rolled by a foreign country and will not benefit this country in any meaningful long term way. This is important. Thank you for reading this submission."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Doyle
"The proposed 'Super Sewer' has neither been demonstrated to be the most effective nor the most cost-effective solution to the current problem. (Other economic interests may well be behind this project!). Being a residential area, and in close proximity to a local school, the Chambers Wharf area cannot be subjected to the massive disruption, noise pollution and potential dangers that such a large-scale construction site would cause. Local residents would find sleep impossible for not months, but years according proposed plans to work 24/7 and the children's education at the local school would suffer. In these times of crisis, other avenues should be explored before burdening the tax-payer with unnecessary expense of such an unnecessary project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Elliott
"My place of residence is directly opposite the proposed Chambers Wharf site. My principal concern with the proposed development relates to noise and light pollution both at night and during the day. My understanding is that building works are proposed to continue for some 7 years on a 24 hours a day basis. For those who do not live right by the river, the effect of any noise and particularly 'banging' type noises is profound - they reverberate across the water amplifying the effect. With most of the surrounding properties on both sides of the river being residential any building noise will have a seriously detrimental effect on the quality of life of the residents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Parker
"I am against this project at Chambers Wharf given how close I will be to all the dust and I have severe asthma. I think king stairs has more room and is not so close to so many properties. The years of work will affect elderly residents as well as the young children at Riverside Primary School. The high levels of dust and noise will be very harmful to all the above parties and I believe king stairs should be used as the alternative site in Southwark if Abbey Mills is not an option. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Parker
"I am against this project at Chambers Wharf given how close I will be to all the dust and I have severe asthma. I think king stairs has more room and is not so close to so many properties. The years of work will affect elderly residents as well as the young children at Riverside Primary School. The high levels of dust and noise will be very harmful to all the above parties and I believe king stairs should be used as the alternative site in Southwark if Abbey Mills is not an option. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jean-Christophe Blanc
"As a Fulham resident for the last 18 years, I have seen a deterioration in the quality of community life beyond what I could have imagined, most notably increased air traffic and road gridlocks. This latest project would have enormously negative implications for the traffic in the whole South Fulham area, which is already heavily congested most of the times. New Kings Road ans Wandsworth Bridge road are simply not equiped to deal with the transpot infrastructure that such a project would require. Even re-oppening of the Chelsea harbor access (still incredibly closed) would not suffice. It does not take a genious to figure this out. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jenny Naylor
"Impact on quality of life: Fulham Carnwarth Road area is a densely residential neighbourhood which will be subject to 7 years' of noise, dirt and disruption, as well as serious traffic congestion compounded by the new Sainsbury’s developments in Townmead Road and a large residential development in Carnwath/Sulivan Road, plus the development of the Parsons Green Sports and Social Club in Broomhouse Lane. Smell: The sewer facility outlet pipe will inevitably result in smells across the area depending on where the wind is blowing. Barn Elms: This site was dismissed by Thames Water when in fact it would cause less disruption to residents and there's space in which to build the site. This site was dismissed without proper consultation. The locals in Barn Elms had many months to prepare their objections. Fulham residents were given something like 12 weeks in which to express their opinions meaning many residents were simply not aware that this was being consulted on. Results: The results of the consultation with residents has been ignored by Thames Water which is unacceptable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Grant
"The noise levels given the "24 hour site operation" will create considerable disturbance to neighbouring residents.Plus local traffic disruption . Furthermore the issue of dust and airbourne pollutants that will result Providence Square is +/- 250m away from the site. Noise levels stated in the "planning application" may be understated to facilitate approval. Suggested noise suppression measures made by Thames Water are vague and do not seem to have been technically thought through. For example "....a B&Q type structure.....over the site". A proper engineering study should be commissioned"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Patten
"I think that alternative solutions to improving the quality of water in the Thames should be considered in far more detail. Also, the selection of the Chambers Wharf site is just wrong: it is a residential area and the negative impact on the local community will be substantial. The building out of the site into the Thames and the consequences of this for the river are totally inappropriate. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
London Corinthian Sailing Club (London Corinthian Sailing Club)
"The London Corinthian Sailing Club has offered sailing activities on the Thames since 1894. Our members regularly sail on the Thames both during the week and at weekends. We are an RYA Training Establishment offering a wide range of training and sailing opportunities. We fully supports the Thames Tideway Tunnel for the following reasons: 1. The Tideway Tunnel will benefit all Londoners by ensuring a sewage system that will ensure a cleaner, healthier river Thames. 2. The level of pollution caused by untreated sewage overflowing into the Thames at the moment is utterly unacceptable. The overflows do not run off immediately, but linger for many days as it is washed back and forth with each incoming and outgoing tide. 3. At present, serious river pollution regularly curtails sailing activity as it is not safe for sailors to launch onto what can only be described, at times, as an open sewer. 4. Each year, thousands of fish and other river wildlife are killed by these sewage overflows. 5. Failure to address the current problem will result in breaches of current environmental standards and legislation. 6. We understand that the overflows occur following as little as 2mm of rainfall, an occurrence that appears to be increasingly common. 7. The Thames Tunnel is, in the view of our members, the best and most effective means of diverting sewage away from the Thames and its construction is long overdue. 8. Alternative proposals, such as a Sustainable Urban Drainage System, to divert rainwater away from the drains , are impractical, extremely costly, bearing in mind the complex sewage and drainage systems already functioning in a heavily built-up urban and city area. 9. At a time of rising unemployment the Thames Tunnel will provide, directly and indirectly, an estimated 9,000 additional jobs. 10. A cleaner Thames will have considerable benefits for the environment, recreational and amenity group activities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mad 4 Fitness Ltd, t/a Energie Fitness Club (Mad 4 Fitness Ltd, t/a Energie Fitness Club)
"I own a Health & Fitness Club directly opposite the main entrance to the proposed main drill site on Carnwath rd. The increased traffic will significantly increase the risk of road accidents to pedestrians, cyclists and runners visiting my club. Whilst the deterioration in air quality as a result of the major buidling works will directly affect the air quality within my club, in contrast to how we promote health and wellbeing. With building works also being carried out 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, there will also be substantial noise and vibration to contend with, adding to the worsening air quality. Not an environmental mix members would choose to join a health club offering. This alone has the potential to close my business. The proposals also state that the parking bays along Carnwarth Road will be removed, thus removing the all the parking currently being used by my members, and no alternative will be offered. Having spent 7 years building a business with strong community links I cannot understand why such an expensive, out of date scheme is being planned with the main tunnel site being situated within a residential community, with schools and business being directly effected. How is this going to affect the community, if residents decide to leave, and accomodation cannot be rented, the population will fall as will my membership numbers. Who whats to live and be a member of a health a fitness club beside such a huge buiding scheme. It is understood Thames Water have also publicly admitted they would be prepared to offer those living nearby alternative accomodation for the duration of the building work. They know how much it will affect people, business's and the quality of all our lives, so such a huge scheme should not be given the go ahead within a residential community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Baynes
"I disagree with the planning application on various grounds. The main ones are set out below: 1. Thames Water did not consult properly, they just went through the motions. Leaflets were not delivered, it was glaringly obvious they did not regard our views as worthy of consideration and they twisted and misrepresented facts at any opportunity. 2. Thames Water have never given proper consideration to the alternative brownfield site at Heckford. During the consultation process they glossed over this perfectly feasible option at every opportunity. 3. Thames Water has never considered the real cost to the environment and quality of life of those who live and work in East London."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Hill
"I strongly disagree with this application. The construction of this project will severely disrupt the lives, families, communities that surround this location. Most particularly there are two schools immediately adjacent to the site of this project. The learning of all the children at these schools could be severely disrupted by the noise of constant heavy construction and associated traffic. Other forms of pollution created by the work could also have a severe impact on the health of these children and other local people constantly throughout the period of construction and in the operation of the sewer. It is hard to imagine a more dangerous site from this perspective. There are strong and densely housed local communities with more housing accommodation currently in construction more closely to the project. I believe that a more remote site (there are some) is possible and should be selected for the purposes of the sewer. The current plan is shocking, uncaring and an outrage."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matt Thorley
"Objection to the Thames Tidal Tunnel: I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed Thames Tidal Tunnel at Carnwath Road. • Wholly inappropriate location; whilst the site is technically “brownfield” it is surrounded by a very dense residential area. The area has only remained “brownfield” due to a large number of failed planning applications and purposeful “buy and hold” strategies which, in the long run, have been to the detriment to the local area. The site cannot accurately be categorised as a brownfield site. Planning permission was recently granted for a mixed residential scheme which would be far more in keeping with the local area and create much needed homes and jobs. • There are significantly more suitable areas for development of this nature (although I dispute that a tunnel in this form is actually a proportionate solution to the problems identified.) • Six primary schools and two secondary schools are all within a mile of the site with some residents living just 10 yards away from where the deep sewer drilling work could happen. • There are also concerns over the fumes, noise, dust and effect on already congested roads, while some people may need to move home. • The case for a tunnel, compared to say an enhancement of existing SUDs, has not been adequately assessed or made. • Evidence that this area is already one of, if not the, most congested area in London. Unable to support significant additional traffic (which the tunnel would create if approved) and would place unbearable stress on road network without adequate short or long term compensation or mitigation. • No other major city is currently seriously contemplating a tunnel like this; for example New York have recently decided adopt a “green” alternative. This approach has not been given due consideration and the Planning Inspectorate needs to bear this is in mind when weighing the benefits and costs of the proposed scheme. If there is a greener, more cost efficient, more effective alternative that can deliver results in a shorter time frame than the tunnel option (and that is presuming it is delivered on time!) it needs to be given due merit. • Current scheme fails to demonstrate how it can address any of the issues it identifies in terms of water treatment in the short term. • The costs of this proposed scheme are substantial and there is inadequate protection for taxpayers. • Due to the nature of the location a scheme such as that proposed would cause significant disruption to a very wide area. Those affected would include, residents, both young and old, school children, both primary and secondary, local businesses, local wildlife and a number of other groups. The impact on these groups will be wholly disproportionate to the benefits yielded from a scheme such as that proposed and could not be mitigated against. On balance, given the limited benefits the scheme offers, compared to the clearly identifiable short and long the impacts, I strongly believe this scheme must be refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Willoughby
"I often visit the park as part of a circuit that involves walking down the canal, through Wapping and down the river. It is how I relax at the weekend. I understand that the supersewer is important. But King Edward's Park is equally important to the people who live around here. We don't have much in the way of green space - particularly as serviceable and pleasant as this park - and it would be tragic to lose it. As far as I understand it, there are other options Thames Water could employ in order to create the supersewer, including exploiting brownfield sites. We believe working on King Edward Park foreshore and leaving a sewer ventilation system in the front of the park will destroy the park forever and a valuable public resource. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr C R Folley
"I belive there is already enough traffic in this area and more heavey lorries will only add to more congestion and traffic jams. Also the round the clock noise would be very disruptive for the people living in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Larry Broomhead
"Concerned about impact of proposal on flats where I live (noise, dust and traffic), on surrounding roads and our quality of life. Also concerned about danger posed to children attending schools close-by. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Oliver Troop
"I am a local resident. These plans would close King Edward Memorial Park for at least 3.5 years. This is the only proper park within a half hour walk of my home."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Ralph Geoghegan
"I am the owner of a property located very close to the Chambers Wharf proposed major drill site. After reading the material made available for the proposal I strongly believe this is not the appropriate location for this construction. The proposal looks to improve the health and well being of Londoners but is likely to radically reduce the quality of life for a significant number at people at sites such as Chambers Wharf. This is a dense residential location and the nature of the work will severely intrude in a way few of those impacted could have imagined. More careful thought needs to be given to modern solutions to dealing with the underlying solution - a tunnel may not be the only desirable solution. If it is agreed that a tunnel is the only option then other sites need much greater consideration, some of which have already been highlighted such as those already used for transportation of spoil. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas William Horan
"I disagree with the application. I live in the block flat adjacent and the application will devalue property in the entire community as well as increase traffic, pollution (noise and air) and significantly reduce the quality of life for residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nora Tandberg
"I am deeply concerned about the impact the project will have in my neighborhood in terms of noise, disruption and pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pam Rooke
"Unfortunately, many strongly held views against the need for the tunnel project will now be ignored as it is established national policy, even though the proposed Thames Water's super-sewer project is not the best or most cost effective solution with Independent bodies confirming that London’s sewage problem could be solved by a cheaper, greener alternative. Given that the tunnel is going ahead, Thames Water’s plans at Chambers Wharf, opposite Cinnabar Wharf, Wapping, will mean construction work 24/7 for at least 3 years, followed by a further 7 years of construction & redevelopment. Local residents and the 1000 children, who attend the two schools next to the site will bear the brunt of this, but Cinnabar residents will also be exposed to as much noise & dust, indeed, the barrister engaged by Save Your Riverside, who is an expert on noise, confirms that the amplification across the water may even make the impact greater than for those residents adjacent to the work on the south side. There are alternatives; short tunnels and appropriate mitigation in other areas or a change of route using the Abbey Mills site. Thames Water's whole motivation is profit driven; their customers will be footing the £4.1bn bill (increased Water bills of at least £85 per year for life from 2013) just so that a foreign investment bank’s profits and Thames Water’s profits can continue to balloon. Thames Water stand to make an extra £100m profit a year if the scheme goes ahead as proposed while making life unbearable for local residents both adjacent to & opposite the Chambers Wharf site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Moore
"As an owner of a riverside flat opposite to the proposed site I would argue the following against the application: 1. The location of the major plant is wrongly positioned as it is within a large residential area. It should be re-located to a more industrial based site. 2. Building works are likely to be excessively disruptive for a long duration, thus impacting heavily on the surrounding residential environment. 3. Should the plant be allowed, then its eventual ongoing operational impact will potentially cause health, safety and environmental risks to the surrounding residential community. 4. A development of this scale is likely to devalue the surrounding properties, during both the building phase and the ongoing operational lifetime of the plant. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tamara Dragadze
"My son lives close enough to the Thames Water designated site for his property to lose value and this affects me and the rest of the family who have supported him. Furthermore, he is asthmatic and if his health is aggravated it will affect me and the rest of his family financially even further. Finally, he has a twelve month old daughter for whom I do much of the caring and the consequence of the detrimental effect on her health will also affect my family and my own finances."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tana Parker
"I am against this project at Chambers Wharf given how close I will be to all the dust and I have severe asthma. I think king stairs has more room and is not so close to so many properties. The years of work will affect elderly residents as well as the young children at Riverside Primary School. The high levels of dust and noise will be very harmful to all the above parties and I believe king stairs should be used as the alternative site in Southwark if Abbey Mills is not an option. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terrie E Moffitt
"I live in Flat   Luna House. This building is directly next to the Chambers Warf site and my flat looks down into the site. As a result, any dust, noise, or other problems come directly into my flat. I have tried to sell my flat this year, but agents assess its value as zero, because nobody will buy a flat that is so obviously doomed by this development. When the work begins I will not be able to live in the flat. I know this because when the Chambers Warf site was being cleared of warehouses 3-4 years ago, warm air rising from the site up the south side of the building flooded my flat with thick dust every day for months. I had to vacuum clean nightly. Both my husband and I developed respiratory ailments, his was severe and lasted many months. The noise was appalling. The flats in Luna house do not have air conditioning, which means that windows must remain open for air flow. Thames Water really must buy our flat. Terrie Moffitt, Professor, King's College London"
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Salmon & Trout Association (The Salmon & Trout Association)
"The Salmon & Trout Association supports the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The tunnel will help tackle the 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage that overflow into the tidal River Thames in a typical year, when the Victorian sewerage system fills to capacity, after as little as 2mm of rainfall. Such levels of pollution are entirely unacceptable. The raw sewage entering the river is lethal to fish, particularly juvenile fish, which are less able to migrate away from the affected area. Every time there is a major overflow of sewage, tens of thousands of these fish die, many too small to see. This can wipe out whole year classes and affect the viability of local fish stocks. The issue of sewage discharging into the River Thames must be tackled effectively and without further delay in order to meet the needs of our natural environment, wildlife and biodiversity and for the continuing use of the river for recreation (including angling), education, community and national events, transport and tourism. The Thames Tideway Tunnel provides the opportunity to create a lasting legacy as well a cleaner, healthier River Thames. Action to clean up the tidal Thames is long overdue. We have looked carefully at the main alternative solutions put forward during the past ten years of study and research and there is no doubt that the proposal to construct an interceptor sewer diverting sewage overflows away from the river and to proper sewage treatment facilities is the best and most effective short and long term solution. Other suggestions have included the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS). London’s busy, intensively utilised and built-up landscape, complex drainage system together with the slow permeability of its underlying clay soils and saturated gravels means that the wholesale installation of SuDS to divert sufficient rainwater away from the drains to provide a workable alternative to the Thames Tideway Tunnel is wholly impractical. Nevertheless complementary SuDS installation is of great importance to extend the life of the Thames Tideway Tunnel and ensure the sustainability of future population growth in the London area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alexander Bradford
"I feel that residents opinions vis a vis this proposal are being ignored and should be considered in more depth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Harding
"I have lived in the area around Chambers Wharf for a number of years. Throughout that time the area has been a quiet residential area with a vibrant local community. Although most of the land around Chambers Wharf was once industrial the redevelopment of Butlers Wharf, Bermondsey Wall West and East and adjacent areas has resulted in a community embracing a diverse and inviting community. If the Chambers Wharf development goes ahead this community will be disrupted for a period of seven years. The nearby local schools will be impacted and the risk of road accidents greatly increased. Personally I feel that the fact that a development can be underway "around the clock" goes against all aspects of a "right of quiet enjoyment" of my property - the disruption will be considerable. The fact that Thames Water are already flagging 24/7 working and a massive number of vehicle movements suggests that we probably do not fully understand the scale of the impact at this stage. I am baffled as to why a development of this scale in a residential area with the associated level of disruption for such a period of time can even get passed the first stage of approval. For me simply moving is not an option. The real issue I have is that there is a viable alternative to this development at Abbey Mills. I cannot understand why this is not being pursued by Thames Water. I believe Thames Water have effectively conceded recently that the development of this existing industrial site is a viable alternative. So much disruption to the community, and increased safety risk for the individuals within it, could it would appear be avoided. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angela Matyhew
"The proposed Thames Water construction side would wreck a large part of south Fulham. It would prevent further residential development and business opportunities. It would cause massive disruption not just for residents of south Fulham but up to Fulham Broadway and well beyond because of the massive heavy transport movements 24/7. Furthermore, residents of the whole Thames Water area will have to pay far higher bills in return for this appalling vandalism of our area. Lastly, I don't think nearly enough has been done to avoid this £4.1+ billion scheme and keep the Thames clean by environmental means. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Rosenberg
" The impact of consituction will damage local commerce, blight property values, and the quality of life for residents. There re 5 schools nearby. If constructed the tunnel will be paid for by TW customers, underwritten by UK taxpayer and this asset wil be only of beneift to overseas shareholders -This represents a an avoidable loss to the UK economy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Snowball
"I live in a property adjacent to the proposed development. I support the project but am concerned to ensure that disruption caused by the works is minimised."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Garden
"My main objections are: The area is primarily residential and Thames Water's revised plan to locate a drain in Carnwath Road is ill-judged. It is outrageous that the birds and bees of Barnes should be given priority over humans. Any disturbance to them would be temporary and it is well proven that wildlife quickly adapts to altered conditions, whereas local residents would suffer permanently from pollution, noise and who knows what aromas during and after completion. Further residential developments are planned along Carnwath Road. The placing of an unsightly, polluting, industrial development beside housing is both inappropriate and hazardous to health. Carnwath Rd is already frequently congested with a disproportionate number of lorries. The effects of the further, huge, increase in traffic that this project will generate is a very alarming prospect and little consideration appears to have been given to the health and welfare of local residents. As as asthmatic, I am deeply concerned and Thames Water have offered no credible assurances to allay my fears. The tunnel option seems to be ill considered and finance-driven and Thames Water do not appear to have researched properly or objectively other alternatives to London's sewer problems. The findings of the Thames Tunnel commission seem to have been largely ignored. Other cities have successfully implemented more effective and environmentally sympathetic solutions to their problems and it is disturbing that Thames Water are so determined to pursue an out-dated, damaging and destructive option. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne-Christin Miller
"I DISAGREE with the use of the Chambers Wharf site in connection with the above application. This site is located in the middle of a purely residential area. The proposed construction works will destroy our quiet neighborhood with the anticipated noise and dust pollution and the increased traffic. It will render our flat uninhabitable given that the building is located right next to the site. The proposed 24/7 construction will mean that our flat can neither be lived in, rented out or sold (other than at a huge loss if at all). From the consultation process (which was not adequate in my view) I understand that there are alternatives to the proposed use of the site which might be even more cost efficient and environmentally friendly. Given the anticipated time line of seven years (and we all know these types of works always take longer) this project will affect and blight our lives to an immeasurable extent. Please consider: - the adverse impact on the lives of the residents in the area (including sleep deprivation, stress from the noise, side affects from the pollution) - the already huge traffic problems at Jamaica Road which will be exacerbated - the closeness of many schools to the site - the loss of our properties (can't live, can't rent, can't sell) for nearly a decade (if not longer) - the huge costs of using the site - the alternatives which might be equally if not more environmentally friendly - the affect on tourism (the construction site will be seen from Tower Bridge). Many residents in the area have expressly protested against this project during the consultation process. Please listen to the local people! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Annie Street
"I am strongly opposed to this development taking place in a residential area. I live and work in this area and do not think this site should be categorised as 'brownfield' it is at the centre of a community with schools, houses, flats, a gymnasium. I also have serious concerns about an increase of traffic in the neighbouring roads. I walk my toddler & baby up Peterborough road twice a day to nursery & it is not suitable to have heavy goods vechicles coming and going on our small residential streets. There is an increased risk of a fatality in an area filled with you g families. The proposed site is also very close to Thomas's school playground. Young children should not be subjected to the dust and debris of major excavation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Arin Basu
"I am a supporter of the SaveKEMP Community Campaign. I don't agree with Thames Water's plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impact on the community is unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I request the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carla Kaspar
"As a resident of Fulham living within 2 blocks from Carnwath Road, I am particular concerned with the project proposed by Thames Water. Thames Water has failed to proceed with the expected public consultation framework when choosing the Carnwath Road site, and have failed to consider the huge impact in the residents lives within the area. Recent studies have shown that the impact of the works proposed by Thames Water are devastating for over 15.000 residents, with a direct impact of a minimum of 10-­?year disruption in their lives. Pollution, including the emission of poisonous gases, would directly affect a densely populated area with over 2000 children attending the 15 schools within less than 1 km from the site. I have failed to encounter a reasonable argument for an expenditure of £3.6billion in a project when the same results could be achieved with half of the sum, as highlighted in independent engineering report submitted to Thames Water in 2012. Thames Water has been mostly unhelpful in offering alternatives for the harmful fumes, pollution, constant noise, traffic disruption, distress and community losses that will directly impact the residents. Carnwath site should be a residential site. It is thoroughly unsafe to allow deep excavations on a site where a number of chemicals and other potentially harmful materials have been secured. Thames Water proposition is purely political, and the consequences to the residents and the environment are simply devastating. No council or governmental entity in the right frame of mind could ever back up such insane and clearly destructive plan when at least 4 better viable (and cheaper) propositions for a clean Thames have been submitted. Finally, I find abusive and offensive that a privately owned company is now proposing the dirtiest and longest construction in the history of modern London in one of the most densely populated areas of the capital simply to satisfy a foreign bank in his quench for profit (pls refer to Financial Times 30th Oct 2011). "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Keighley Elstub
"1. This is not the way forward, as there are several far better options to drain away sewerage when it rains heavily. We already have droughts in London, and the idea of not trying to save our rain water is barbaric."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Brocket
"XX The Piper building is home to my family, the youngest of which is 18 months, and has been so for thirteen years. All of our windows look directly on to the site of the borehole, a distance of just thirty yards. The entire fenestration of all seventy-five flats in the Piper Building was fabricated in such a way that even when shut dust and wind pass straight through the frames and the sound reducing qualities of the double glazing are extremely poor. I will be crucial to be able to have a barrier to both the dust and the noise to make life in any way bearable, and when the windows are shut in summer air conditioning will be essential as our windows face south-west. We have an undertaking from Thames Water at Director level that if the work proceeds that new double glazing and air conditioning will be installed. The second immediate concern is that the schools our children attend are opposite the   in the   rd, and the local creche (   ) and food store (Sainsburys). All of these locations require the children to be pushed in push chairs on an almost daily basis and the massive increase in heavy duty lorries throwing up dust as they move is a real concern for their health."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chay Pearce-Cochrane
"I disagree with this application. There is very little green space for residents of the local area and plenty of other spaces where Thames Water could develop such a site. Granting this planning permission will result in the loss of valuable recreational areas for the children that live in the city, it will cause significant disruption to the local area / residents including dust, debris, etc that could be dangerous to your health."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chrissy Stenning
"The building of the tunnel will have a detrimental impact on the local community around the South Fulham site. The disruption to traffic will be intolerable and the noise and vibration of lorries will be totally unacceptable. There are schools very close to this site and many households will be effected by 24 hour vibration noise and pollution. The South Fulham site is just not suitable. The giant sewer will not solve the fundamental problem which is not sewage, but rainwater. It is NOT A GREEN solution. Separating the collection of rainwater from sewage would be a much better idea. Insufficient research has been done on alternative proposals.The project is way out of control financially. There seems to be no control on the cost as they are passing it all on to their customers. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Digby-Bell
"I live locally to the proposed site. I go to the gym opposite the site and if there is to be work there for 7 years with no local parking I will have to stop going to the gym and I am unhappy about that for my health and wellbeing. Not to mention I don't want the gym to go out of business. I also shop at the local Sainsburys so I have to drive through Carnwath Road to get to the store and the added congestion and lorries will make it impossible to do for 7 long years, so that store will lose my business. I object to the tunnel being progressed using an old plan, there is a newer plan that would do the same task without taking so long to construct and not needing to inconvenience all the local residents and businesses and I wish you would consider alternative plans."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clotilde Lasocki
"My family and I (5 people in total) are extremely concerned about the Thames Water tunnel development. For a few reasons: - in the short term: the area is already extremely congested due to current property development generating huge amounts of trafic around Wandsworth bridge. This has a direct impact on our quality of life whether we use the buses (delayed), the car (our street ends up being a secondary road for diversions) or walk (noise levels completely crazy, dust and pollution seriously increased) - immediate impact on our quality of life: the noise level is permanent during the day due to building development, adding another one will make rest impossible for local residents. Building sites create additional traffic, dust as well that we have to cope with not only outside but inside the houses. I ma not just talking about the extra cleaning involved but also about increased sneezing and coughing from children. For these 2 points I said "short term" the reality is that the TW project is long winded so it is not really short term (7 years!). Longer term, this is extremely worrying regarding the damages it might have on existing buildings and houses. The grounds in the area are not very stable, most houses are made of brick and such a change in the environment will most certainly have an impact on the structural viability of the houses. We do agree with the fact that we need to make the Thames river cleaner but are still struggling to see why this project is the one that has been chosen when there are so many simpler options available. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cordelia Barbour
"I do not think there should be a major construction site in South Fulham. It is a densely residential area which already suffers from traffic congestion. I am extremely concerned about the impact such a site would have on my family and my community in particular the noise, pollution, vibration and extreme levels of additional traffic in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Richards
"Dear Sir, There is extremly strong local support from everyone I know in Wapping and Limehouse about saving King Edward Memorial Park from this project. I completely object to any changes at the park whatsoever. Regards, Daniel"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David de Maupeou
"The super sewer proposal is utterly wrong on a number of levels: huge loss of amenity value both during the works (huge additional traffic to an already conjested part of London, noise and dirt to a densely residential area) and afterwards (smell). And seemingly far cheaper/viable alternatives to the issues surrounding the London sewerage system which are not being considered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Kellie-Smith
" The project is not needed. Rainwater can and should be used to water the local parks. The project is in the wrong place surrounded by residential buildings. It should be on vacant land at Barn Elms. The damage to the area, traffic congestion, noise and dirt in the construction period will be most destructive."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denis Power
"The TW proposal is the most expensive option and has failed in other cities. There are cheaper and greener options on the table, which are ignored by TW. The additional profit of approximately £900m is driving TW to pursue this solution despite the severe costs in terms of noise, pollution, traffic and damage to the overall environment. Nor is this limited to Fulham; additional supplementary sites along the length of the Thames in London will adversely impact on a number of other local communities. The Fulham site is far too small and too close to homes and schools to be acceptable. The flat developments across the river in Wandsworth will also be affected. Traffic density in South Fulham is already a serious problem, as is traffic on the north/south one way system in Kensington and Chelsea, which will also be used by the 29,000 lorries. The additional cost to all Thames Water customers of approximately £100 a year is an ironic consequence, particularly given the company's dreadful record on water conservation and leaks. How such an incompetent company can be allowed to destroy a neighbourhood and create havoc for 7+ years beggars belief."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek Snowball
"I live in a property adjacent to the proposed development. I support the project but am concerned to ensure that disruption caused by the works is minimised."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dermot Keane
"As a family with 5 young children we are extremely concerned with the short and long-term health and safety aspects of such an unprecedented construction development in a settled residential area. We already have roads congested with trucks, buses and cars making life dangerous enough for young children walking and cycling to and from school. The many local parks in the vicinity of the sewer will become "no-go" areas during the duration of the work due to the increased traffic dangers. Adding to the pollution, noise levels, and many other disruptive elements of having such a huge project is severely detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the affected residents. Alternative solutions have to be encouraged to minimise the impact on the daily lives of the residents for so long."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Jean Pierre Isal
"This project will destroy the lives of thousands of people in South Fulham. This area is presently home to many schools, and gardens used by thousand of people. This project will mean 7 years of transport chaos, tremendous pollution, 24X7 noise. Schools will have to be relocated, parks will not be safe for children, local businesses will have to close. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Josephine Storek
"We feel that there should not be a major construction site in South Fulham. We are very concerned about the impact of the building works for seven years (as assumed at the moment, such as noise, vibration, pollution, sleep deprivation, dangers to children etc."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr R Paul Quilliam
"The proposed development would cause extremely adverse enviromental consequences to all who live in The Piper Building blighting the area environmentally and causing an economic blight for residents and tenants "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Gibson
"Neighboring property owner who would be severely affected by these works"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eric Galbraith
"I am against this application. This area is not only a major residential area it is also an important schools location one of which is only a few meters away. These facts alone make the choice of this location most questionable and totally unsuitable. In addition this location is on one of the most popular tourist and recreational routes along the thames. No precautions can ensure the safety of residents,tourists and most importantly the children during the many years of construction . Lastly having such a construction within sight of londons major tourist attraction tower bridge is not a very clever. As I stated in my letter we need to take a step back and look at the decision to consider this location. Given the proximity to residents and more importantly schools there is an unacceptable chance that this construction will cause not only material damage but more importantly serious health and very possibly loss of life. No risk management provisions can provide complete safety but the proximity of the schools increases these risks to a level which is critical . The view that this construction is suitable in this area both during the indicated 7 years of construction and on an ongoing basis in this location must be reconsidered with a view to finding somewhere more suitable. Yours sincerely Eric Galbraith "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fenella Gray
"This project is a very expensive money making operation for Thames Water who will pass on the costs to their customers whilst maintaining high profits for their shareholders. There are other alternative methods which are greener of dealing with rainwater . This project will be detrimental to the residents in our area and specifically those in Carnwarth road. The financial and enviromental costs are too high."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Florence Frankland
"I am a supporter of the SaveKEMP community campaign. I do not agree with Thames Water's plans for King Edward Memorial Park. The impacts on the community are unreasonably excessive especially as there is a viable alternative. The likely increase in construction traffic and resulting increase in noise and pollution levels are of significant concern, as is the loss of the park for leisure and as a Thames side cycle path. I believe that Thamas Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I urge the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Francesco Berni
"We (my family) object to a major construction site in South Fulham. In the main we are concerned about the impact on our lives (our children attend   school nearby) and our household (noise, vibration, pollution, sleep deprivation, dangers to children). My objection stems from the fact that alternative locations remain available that would have a far lower impact on fewer people like ourselves. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gail Slater
"I formally object to the go-ahead of the above application (ref: WW010001) on the basis that, being a resident of the principal access road to the tunnel, I will be subject to an estimated 7 years of disruption by way of environmental pollution from heavy traffic and construction work. In addition, the project will have a detrimental impact on the value of my property. It also seems to breach the original proposal to build residential dwellings and retail outlets, which would have complimented and enhanced the existing neighbourhood."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Giovanni Fiorentino
"Dear Sirs, I have major concerns about the impact of such a project in our area and the way it would affect our lives. From security problems to increase in crime rate, to traffic congestion, noise, pollution, vibrations, sleep deprivation, danger to children (I am a father of three children aged between 2 and 15). Without mentioning the loss of values which would affect all properties and land nearby! I believe it would be totally inappropriate to carry out such a project in a densely populated area like Fulham, it would have an extremely negative impact and effects on the lives of hundreds of thousand of people who would see their lives twisted overnight and their savings invested in their homes and properties suddenly plunging as the value of their dwellings. I understand that there would be alternative, less expensive, far less disruptive and greener solutions to this project which could and should be considered and I believe such alternatives should be encouraged to avoid the chaos and disruption this project would otherwise bring to the whole area, the residents and visitors alike. Best regards. Giovanni Fiorentino"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Griselda Kellie-Smith
"There is a great deal of well researched opposition to this plan which is enormously expensive and fails to explore creatively or openly the alternative, environmentally preferable idea of using the rainwater productively instead of letting it run into the over-used sewage system. At no point have I heard any of the planners responsible for the VAST report recently published to support this expensive venture indicate that they are willing to listen to or read about the alternative methods of dealing with the problem of a sewage system that is over-burdened when heavy rainwater is added. it is shocking that you are willing to go ahead with a scheme that is destructive of communities, hugely unpopular and very expensive without listening to those who will be paying for this ill-conceived plan. The current plan is being pushed through with arrogance and a disregard for democracy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hugo Kirby
"(1) The Thames Tideway "Super Sewer" is a deeply flawed solution to a recognised problem. It is without any scientific basis, and the pseudo science put forward in justification would not convince an A level physics teacher. The "solution" has been put forward by Thames Water due to the perverse incentives of the regulatory regime which artificially encourages utilities to engage in major capital projects (2) Even if the Super Sewer is the right solution, the drilling station at Carnwarth Road is wholly inappropriate. The enormous disruption, for more than 10 years is completely incompatible with the lives of the more than 10,000 people in the immediate vicinity who will be affected, let alone the spiralling waves of traffic and other disruption which will spread from this already highly congested area. (3) the site at Barn Elms Reservoir - which as the name suggests has always been a water treatment site - is much better suited for this purpose. It has far fewer residents affected and, whilst in recent years it has been used as a wildlife site it can be readily restored to that use after work has completed. Technically there is no doubt that Barn Elms is the better site, it is simply that Thames Water felt they had a softer target in Fulham. (4) Leaving aside the enormous disruption during the working period the legacy of such a large "vent stack" after the work is complete, is totally inappropriate for one of London's most densely populated areas. Again, Barn Elms, with its sparse population, is much more appropriate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Mizrahi
"The selected site at Bermondsey Wall West represents a number of serious problems: The chosen site is in a highly populated area surrounded by schools and residential buildings. The works will represent a health and safety hazard for the area inhabitants, including pollution, and excessive traffic. Also 24 hours operation will make the area inhabitable requiring major re-allocations of families. It will also turn the residential area into a “ghost town”, increasing theft and vandalism. Southwark is one the boroughs with highest level of poverty. The chosen site is in Shad Thames, seen as most as a national example of urban renovation: attracting higher income people, driving new development projects, improving the local economy and increasing the quality of living of the entire borough. This project will kill this engine of growth and development in Southwark, depress the entire area and have a very significant negative impact on the borough at large. Many people rely on incomes generated by properties they own in the area. Others will need to move and sell their properties at depressed prices. The magnitude of the construction site will cause very significant hardship on the local population and very significant facilities will need to be put in place to address these issues. Finally, a thorough independent assessment of the health risks for residents with varying levels of proximity to the site should be assessed and mitigated. For instance, in addition to pollution, its likely that very significant amounts of contaminated land will be released into the environment through the excavations. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Reed
"The deep tunnel sewer is a disproportionate response to the surface water problem; other, more contemporary answers have not been sufficiently explored; up to seven years of disruption - noise, pollution, smell, traffic congestion, evacuation - in a densely populated residential area is without precedent; concomitant major developmental works on the east side of Wandsworth Bridge Road will contribute to major congestion in the whole area of South Fulham."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Wareing
"My three children attend     in   Road. We drive to school from Wandsworth each day and already the traffic can be quite heavy going and and from Wandsworth Bridge on the Fulham side. The added volume of traffic would make the area very difficult to negotaite. In addition I think the noise and traffic could be disruptive to the number of schools in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Javier Benavides
"I have lived hre for 10 years, and in that time, the regeneration from old derelict industrial to beautiful new living/residential riverside area has been amazing. The inclusion of large areas of park, a new train station and large green areas demonstrates the importance to the quality of life in the planning process/granting of building permits. there are still many new developments going up. Apart from this, there are schools and local businesses which have managed to survive the increasing traffic problems around Wandsworth Bridge Road. It is utterly unbelievable that this will be destroyed by the many years of Industrial Activity in the building of the super sewer, and then by the impact of the sewer on on the environment for wha tis a densily populated area. Please reconsider by looking at much less populated areas along the river, its obvious there are better choices ! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanna Matthews
"the site of the super sewer will destroy the river front. It will disrupt traffic between Broomhouse Road and Wandsworth Bridge. Construction work with the increase of trucks will pose a health hazard and a traffic hazard to people living in the area and in particular to the junior schools in the area. This will make it impossible for children to travel to school unaccompanied. Construction on the site in a dense residential area will cause a noise disturbance outside of legal working hours. There is no proof to show that once completed that the sewer will rectify the problem of run-off sewage entering the Thames. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Michael May
"Thames Water proposes to work 24 hours a day at Chambers Wharf from 2017. • They will build a 50m. coffer dam into the river. • They will build a centrifuge plant and use conveyors to remove spoil day and night. • This project will cause traffic mayhem locally. • The work will blight a generation of school children at Riverside Primary School on the main entry road at Bevington Street and two adjacent schools. Having examined the documentation and assessments undertaken by Thames Water in relation to Chambers Wharf, it is likely that there are different ways of constructing the project that would significantly reduce the impacts upon local residents and schools at Chambers Wharf. In February 2011, Chambers Wharf Thames Water purchased the site on condition that the Berkeley Group could reclaim the site for subsequent residential development.. The current proposal to use Chambers Wharf as a main drive (drilling) site for the Tunnel means that redevelopment will not begin until 2023, making a total of seven years of construction for the tunnel plus three or four years for redevelopment. Chambers Wharf is in a very densely populated residential area with several buildings overlooking the site and three schools within less than 100 meters. Thames Water is seeking to remove the ability of residents and the Council to take action for noise nuisance during construction. Its noise impact assessment disguises the true impact through the manner in which the data are presented. The mitigation being offered is unlikely to be sufficient to reduce noise to acceptable levels for all residents particularly during the evening and at night. Thames Water says its procedures for claiming mitigation and disturbance compensation are independent and fair: in my view they are demonstrably not so. . There is only one access road to the site through Bevington Street which runs alongside Riverside Primary School, rated as one of the best primary schools in the country. As the site is too small for the proposed work, Thames Water will build a coffer dam 50 m. into the river. The noise from that construction, processing the spoil on site and loading it by conveyor onto barges will seriously affect the riverside flats opposite in Wapping and the moorings on both sides of the river. Alternatives to Chambers Wharf In Phase One of the consultation on the Tunnel in 2010, Thames Water identified their 26 acre site at the Abby Mills pumping station in East London as the suitable main drive site to construct the eastern sector of the Tunnel. However, since the purchase of Chambers Wharf, Thames Water have argued that this site with riverside access would be more convenient to them. Despite the massive local impact to the community in Southwark and its local schools as well as the cross river impact on residences in Wapping, Thames Water have given no ground on their revised decision. In determining to use Chambers Wharf, Thames Water have not fully appraised the options which would reduce the impact on residents. There are better ways of constructing the Tunnel which would significantly reduce the local impact on residents and schools."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Paul Redding
"I believe that Thames Waters Consultation for the Carnwarth Road Riverside site was flawed, as the site was discounted at stage one consultation as not being big enough. Because of the public outcry over Barn elms as a site then the site was suddenly large enough. I believe that having changed their mind after stage one then the decion was already made as they would not then change back after stage 2 consultation, as it would look like they would not know what they were doing. I do not believe that Thames water have considered all alternative potential solutions to the problem in sufficent detail before coming up with this proposal. No edidence was presented about the possible alternatives considered and the resaons they had been rejected. I do not believe that the impact on the densely residential in South Fulham was adequatly taken into account during the Site selection process. Many more housholds are within the 150 m radius of the site in SOuth Fulham than the alternate at Barn ELms but this did not have any impact on the decion making. I believe that Thames Water misled the public in terms of the noise disruption for the 24x7 phase of the tunnelling saying that the proximity of residential properties woudl not be an issue as most of the noise would be underground. Thames water post the consultation admited that it would probably be necessacry to move some of the resident closes to the site because of this nuicance. This is exactly what we feared and what Thames water denied during the consultations in South Fulham. There are other major development projects in the small area of Fulham going on at present which means that we will ahve potential 10-12 years of constant building works right on our doorstep. (within in 500m radiaus of the buondary of this site) This needs to be reduced or shared around. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Le Blan
"I am against this application on the grounds of noise, pollution and traffic congestion. In addition I understand that there are alternatives to it which are far less costly and disruptive. Fulham is a very densely populated area with many families with young children and many schools. The quality of the air will be very badly affected by the levels of dust and other particulates caused by the 24 hour working of a large site for 7 years. The Wandsworth Bridge Road and surrounding streets are already badly congested with the current levels of traffic. The Wandsworth Bridge Road is a main arterial road into and out of London. Traffic is currently forced onto the narrow residential side streets to avoid the long delays on Wandsworth Bridge Road itself. There will be a considerable increase to the number of large noisy and polluting lorries using this road in order to access and leave the site. The traffic congestion will get even worse than it is now. The noise from the 24 working of an extremely large drill and associated digging and operation of heavy duty machines for 7 years in this densely populated area would seem to be self evidently unacceptable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Thompson
"The impact on the area around the site and the roads leading to itl will involve massive disruption of traffic in already crowded and narrow streets, bringing with it increased risk of accidents especially to children for seven years. The noise and dirt pollution will be a risk to the health of thousands of children and elderly people. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kerry Evans
"I disagree with Carnwath Road as the site for the super sewer. The road is congested enough with neighbouring developments and the added disruption of this project will mean inacceptable levels for the many residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin McIntosh
"I struggle to understand that Fulham can be chosen as a site over Barnes which is effectively a green field site. To bring major construction to a densely populated area in Fulham and the impact it will have on people the lives in the area seams unjust. The idea also seems unfair in that there are better green initiatives that should be looked at rather than charging people for an asset that will belong to Thames water. Finally, I also feel that the site selection is unfair in the Barnes was chosen first, people objected (some of which were Fulham residents) and now they move on to another site (Fulham ) without understand the public dislike for the original site. Which I think you will find is not as strong as originally suggested. Thank you, Kevin "
Members of the Public/Businesses
King-Fung Yiu
"I do not think there should be another major construction site at South Fulham, especially to bring in a sewage tunnel which, during its build, would bring in extra pollution, noise, vibrations, sleep deprivation and increase in road traffic which could increase danger for children at surrounding local schools. The project itself would be a detriment to the local area as the super sewer is situated amongst residential surroundings which would have a negative impact on properties, when the land could be used for property development that is more befitting to the South Fulham development plan, running from Imperial Wharf, Fulham Riverside and further West. This would create a better residential and commercial community that would be a much more appealing and help solve part of the countries housing crisis."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura de Benito-Llopis
"I am a resident of Free Trade Wharf adjacent to King Edwards Park and strongly object to the plans to destroy an area of natural beauty and disrupt the local community and the people living adjacent to this area. I am particularly worried about the disruption to the local environment in terms of noise and dust that this project will cause and the disturbance to my newly born daughter in terms of disruption of her sleep due to noise and light pollution. In the short and longer term I am very concerned about the impact this project will have on the value of my home and the impact on rental. Will this be compensated for? In addition my apartment looks in the direction of the proposed works and the promontary that will extend into the river will be in the direct line of sight of the flat and the views there of. This will greatly ditract from the natural ambience and beauty of this stretch of river and negtively impact the quality of life of the residents of this area. The overall effect of the current proposed works will have a negative impact on the quality of life of me and my family for several forseable years and probably in the long term. I strongly object to these plans."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Frost
"The construction of the Thames Sewer at the Carnwarth Rd site is inappropriate. The area is far too built up, with local people, school children and traffic levels which render the plan unworkable. We are currently experiencing the development of the new Sainsbury's site on Townmead Rd, close by, which perfectly demonstrates why the Super Sewer traffic will be unsupportable. The site appears to be operating to largely 'normal' working hours but the road is heavily congested, there are traffic delays and too many vehicles. The side streets are also suffering as waiting site vehicles wait for their entry time to the site. The Sewer construction will produce the same effect but to a far greater degree, and the net result will be that the traffic in Fulham will be even worse than it is now. Unbearable. Anyone who knows the area will recognise that the roads cannot support this traffic disruption and increase. Fulham will be gridlocked."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leigh Henson
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I expect the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Bryant
"I don't believe that there should be construction of a supersewer at the Carnwarth Road site in fulham. I am concerned about the knock on impact across Fulham of traffic, noise, pollution and dangers to children in addition to the noise that local residents will have to suffer. There is already significant work going on around Sands End and another building site will just exacerbate problems. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucien Oppler
"Having lived near to the Jubilee Line extension works during the 90s, I feel that the noise levels, air pollution and reduction in the quality of the lives of residents near this this project would be far too much to make it viable. And especially when one learns that the need for this enormously disruptive and expensive exercise is dubious at best."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Loveday
"1. I oppose the principle of the tunnel itself. 2. I oppose use of thre site at Carnwath Road, Fulham, in particular."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Reynolds
"This is a residential area and to build a massive project like this right in the very heart of where people live is beyond outrageous. It will totally ruin the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people, will devastate house prices (ie what hard-working folk have spent their lives working for) and ruin a much-cherished residential area by the Thames. It is also in very close vicinity to a number of schools with hundreds, if not thousands of children walking up and down the already clogged roads where you now propose to bring in HGVs constantly. It is an accident waiting to happen. This was meant to have been done elsewhere and was moved into the heart of Fulham's residential community after some political shenanigans in Barnes, under the mask of a spurious brownfield versus greenfield argument. Just for one minute imagine your home was here. It is wrong and must be stopped. We in Fulham hope that the Mayor will soon join the local council and MP who have all expressed horror at the proposal. Please do the right thing and stop this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Sommerville
"The application seeks to change a recreational park and residential area into a industrial site when a technically feasible and alternate existing industrial site is available. The park was created with the following dedication by King George V “In grateful memory of King Edward VII. This park is dedicated to the use and enjoyment of the people of East London for ever" and as a result of which I believe that I and all other people of East London have a legal interest in the park. The park has received the Green Flag Award for quality, is considered to have good biodiversity value and has been recognised as a model of good practice, with the Council working in partnership with the charity Trees for Cities. The application seeks to remove numerous of the mature trees and cover in during constriction large parts of the most biologically diverse areas of the park with inevitably cause wider disruption with resultant impact on biodiversity which they cannot guarantee to be able restore. The application will create during its construction visual, noise, light and dust nuisance and impacts on my property both at the constructions site and on the adjoining access roads. Will restrict waterfront access from the Thames Tidal Path to and from my property and to the local tube station, restaurants and recreational facilities in King Edward Memorial Park and Shadwell Basin. One result of which will be to force me to use longer access route which run adjacent to a major highway with resulting increase exposure to vehicle emissions The application will change, during construction by use of moored vessel and during the life of the structures it seeks to install, the water flows and erosion patterns on the waterfront but makes no provision to prevent or remedy the impact on existing properties up or down stream of the location. On completion the application seeks to leave a visual impact in the form of a foreshore constructions, ventilation and access structures and as well as a noise, and dust nuisance during maintenance. This to include the permanent installation of high voltage power distribution boxes into the public park. Finally the application seeks to be permitted to make uncontrolled and un quantified release of gasses and odours which it considers to be hazardous to contain in the system and to human health from the sewage system into a public park and adjacent to residential properties including my own with resultant effects on freedom of enjoyment and property values. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Cooper-Mitchell
"We live in Capital Wharf directly opposite chambers wharf on the north bank. We are most concerned about the pollution, noise , smells and dust resulting from 24/7 construction over three years and continuing for a further four years. The increased activity must also pose a safety threat to leisure river traffic. This will affect our health and enjoyment for an unacceptable period of seven years, plus blighting our home and many thousands of others. I am aware that there are credible alternative schemes which will not have the same environmental impact on residents and would ask you to reject Thames Water's application to ensure that they explore fully the alternative options "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Swann
"The disruption to residents,businesses,road users is excessive.our family live south of the river so journey times will be increased by the congestion over Wandsworth Bridge."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miss Louisa Pope
"I own the lease of an end of terrace property within 100m of the proposed site. I have received information from Thames Water which shows my property to be within the 'vibration zone' of the works and am extremely concerned what this will do to the foundations of the building. Furthermore, the property will be blighted if works are to be carried out 24/7, 365 days a year. The site is in the middle of a highly built up, residential area, with many schools close by and I believe that whilst we have a duty to maintain a good sewage system, this is firstly the wrong location and secondly, the wrong way to go about it. The problem is one of rainwater and not sewage. In brief, we need to harvest rainwater and comply to SUDS regulations. This would stop the sewers flooding every time we have heavy rainfall and therefore eliminate the problem of the sewers overflowing into the Thames."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Moni Chalabi
"I live in the general area and will be affected by this project and so I am very concerned that it could have an adverse effect on the environment in the entire area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Steve Fielding
"My representation, which I think is supported by Mr Jim Fitzpatrick (Member of Parliament) is that King Edward V11 park is an essential recreational facility in East London of a type not known in that immediate locality, and as such it's destruction would be a major blow to an already inpoverished area. I have been in correspondence with the above mentioned Member of Parliament. I feel there is an alternative to the destruction of this essential public space, which I feel ought to be given Village Green status so that the residents of tower Hamlets may continue to enjoy it, as it was given to the Community, in perpetuity !!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Carolyn Smyth
"I have lived in Fulham since 1974, married and had 3 sons. My sons, now grown up, were at school at Emanuel, Wandsworth. Although they travelled to school by train and bus, I had need to collect one or other of them on most days owing to matches, music or other school activities. This was some years ago but the traffic around the New Kings Road and Wandsworth Bridge was very bad even then, in spite of the fact that I knew all the short-cuts. In the last ten years or so, masses of flats have been built on the South side of the River, which increased the traffic over the Bridge and into Fulham even more. For those South of the River needing to cross at Putney, that too is also already a bottleneck. There is no scope there for even more traffic if the project goes ahead. There are also many new flats on the North side of the River around Wandsworth Bridge, as well as the traditional Victorian properties whose occupants' lives will be destroyed for more than 7 years if this plan goes ahead. It is a massive residential area containing supermarkets as well. This site too is completely wrong for all traffic entering or exiting London. It will gridlock traffic for more than 7 years, and there still seems to be no logical argument for the Scheme anyway. Most people think Thames have not fully considered or justified either the project or the location. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Catherine Bajour
"If this project goes through it will have direct and horrible effects on us who live around it.We moved here 8 years ago because the location was relatively quiet, green and exclusive around the river.During as well as after the building of this super sewer our lives will turn the opposite direction ie.noisy ,smelly and congested.Our council tax bill will obviously reflect the huge costs and above all this project does not even guarantee any claims of success, its just a theory.In this time of difficult osterity can it not all wait till the science is more proven and we can all pay for it with relative ease.We beg the authorities responcible to stop this madness of ripping loads of families and businesses from their homes and jobs as well as schools.Let the sense prevail and stop this huge gamble in our lives and futures. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs J Raadtgever-Lavooij
"The plans to build the Thames Tidewell Tunnel, or Super Sewer is causing me and my family great concern. We moved to Parsons Green 10 years ago for thelovely green spaces, the good schools and the nice village feel. My children attend   ' Fulham and as you must be well aware, this school is on   road, a stones throw from where you are planning this huge building site. The building is going to have a major impact on our local quality of life. I'm worried about the quality of the air my children of 3 and 5 will breath, the endless noise pollution of trucks and the drilling. Also the local road safety, the local roads are heavily congested already and the amount of heavy load vehicles will make our local commute more dangerous. Also I'm worried that so little money has been spend on the research and much more money has been spend on supporting this plan. As I could read on the LBHF website: Unlike other water companies in major world cities, Thames Water spent just £12,000 researching green infrastructure projects that would ease the pressure on the underground sewers by soaking up rainwater. Please make sure you have properly researched all other avenues before severly damaging our local neighbourhood. Because I find it very hard to believe that you have read the 50.000 page consultation in 28 days, it takes longer to apply for a parking permit! Alos in the LBHF website: Despite strong protests from residents and the formal challenge from the council the National Planning Inspectorate accepted, after just 28 days consideration, that the 50,000-page planning document for the tunnel is based on an adequate consultation. Please reconsider. Regards, Jessica Raadtgever-Lavooy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Patricia Mansfield
"I live in     which is parallel to Carnworth Road, our lives will be ruined by this project which is being carried out without any regard to the enormous numbers of people who will be effected. I am extremely worried about the 7 years of round the clock building works, the build up in traffic during the works, on a main arterial route through Fulham, the pollution during building work and in the aftermath when we will have a large vent allowing fumes and toxins in to our immediate atmosphere. Included in this unbearable imposition on the local population is also the fact that we have 3 schools all in the immediate area, and a much better redevelopment plan for our area is to be denied because of this proposal. When it was first suggested I never thought it would see the light of day as it was such a ridiculous place to site it. Just because there is a space does not mean it should be used in this way. Wandsworth on the opposite bank already has the refuse area and yet that has not been considered and Barnes the original site could be grassed over and would not have the same detrimental effect on people. We do not have celebrities here, but we do have families and small businesses, we will all be adversely effected for seven years and probably health wise for many years to come. This is absolutely not the place to site this facility."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nathalie McCLure
"I own and live in a property in the vicinity of the proposed super sewer and I strongly believe that the proposed sewer will have an extremely strong detrimental effect on the area in terms of air quality, smells, impact on local schools and also the total chaos during the construction work planned to last 7 years! The Wandsworth bridge road is already terrible with traffic at the best of times and this would really plague the life of residents for many years to come. Careful thoughts and consideration must be given to such a development which has potential catastrophic consequences for our neighbourhood."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Pateman
"The disruption to this densely populated residential area would be extreme as acknowledged by Thames Water's proposal to evacuate a number of people. All for a cement tank project that has been proven to be unsatisfactory in Milwaukee and Philadelphia. It is an environmentally unfriendly solution to an environmental problem that Paris and Berlin are addressing very differently. The incentive in the UK is that NSIP projects involving construction are able to borrow money cheaply, yet collect high surcharges from many millions of customers without end. The infrastructure economics expert Prof Colin Green of Middlesex University calculates this will make Thames Water and its overseas investors in excess of £160 million per year. Why should so many suffer such total upheaval to their lives, not to mention the unaffordable high bills? Surely, in this day and age, a better solution can be found that is kinder to the environment, as well as kinder to the disabled, the elderly, and the schoolchildren who surround this site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Olivia Deighton
"I live just off The Wandsworth Bridge Road where there is already more than enough traffic. I work (part time) in Clapham and the thought of 7 years of extra traffic using the Bridge and the Wandsworth Bridge Road fills me with dismay. We have a massive building project underway in Townmead Road at the moment with the new Sainsburys - please could we have a bit of peace and quiet now. The impact on this huge residential area will be enormous and for all the wrong reasons."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Mullen
"I strongly object to this application on the basis that I believe that the location of this proposed tunnel in South Fulham is entirely inappropriate given that it is a residential area with a high concentration of residential accommodation and schools. In particular, my concerns arise from the fact that my children attend, and will continue to attend during the proposed construction period,   School in   Road. The noise, vibration and pollution which will be caused as a result of the construction process will inevitably have a detrimental effect on the well-being of young children attending schools in the local area and potentially on their health. The effects of the continued operation of the facility once it is completed have also not been fully investigated/explained. The disruption to the local area will be significant which will have an effect on all people who live, work and go to school in the surrounding area. There are a number of other areas which would be far more appropriate sites for this tunnel where the effect on the local community would not be so significant."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pauline Lyle-Smith
"The Thames Sewer is not needed, there are other must better alternatives which are well known in the USA eg the methods used in Philadlephia "Green City, Clean Waters Program"Contact: Philadelphia water commissioner Howard Neukrug The massive Super Sewer is being promoted by Thames Water as the best solution to making the river cleaner, despite water industry experts coming forward to say there are cheaper and greener alternatives. Chris Binnie, Chairman of the Thames Tideway Strategic Study Group from 2000 to 2006, and Professor Colin Green"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Bryant
"I am against the development. It is highly disruptive, causing congestion of traffic. Air pollution near to schools and noise pollution interrupting schooling. It increases the dangers of cycling and walking to school for my children and greatly increases the time spent getting them to school, this will deprive them of needed sleep. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Bartley on behalf of Peter Kehr
"I am strongly opposed to the disruption, pollution, noise and location of the proposed sewerage site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Leslie Thomas
"The proposed site at Carnwath Road is in the middle of a populated area .A number of houses will be approximately 5 metres from the edge of the construction site. Also there are a number of schools nearby. All in the vicinity will have their lives made a misery for up to six years. In addition, the ambitious re- development of the river front ,for which planning permission has already been granted , could not proceed . The original site proposed by Thames Water ( Barns Elms ) would be more appropriate as would it have virtually no impact on residents . ( other than birdlife ! )."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Qing Stevens
"Super sewer will greatly affect the local residents's life, the value of their property. Not sure why such site has to be built in a very populated residential area causing long term disruption to daily life and business. The residents in Barnes have successfully opposed the application. If the project is not suitable for Barnes why is it suitable for Fulham? Are the Fulham residents less worth than those in Barnes? Qing Stevens. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Ahl
"I have several objections to the Tunnel and its proposed construction in Fulham 1. The construction would severely disrupt the artery of Wandsworth Bridge Road (WBR) with lorries clogging up WBR increasing congestion and thereby increasing air pollution. As a lot of people use WBR to get in and out of London daily it would lead to still standing traffic. 2. The construction would negatively affect the schools and the kids in the schools. 3. It would lead to lower houseprices for the next 10 years and decreased yield for landlords - who wants to live next to a building site that is active 24/7? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Elliot-Square
"This smacks of "bulldozing" a plan through to the detriment of those who live in the vicinity without a clear consent. The long term may well provide benefits however, but for some seven years there will be considerable disruption in the area with wide-range issues which may well be detrimental providing extreme stress, disruption and health deterioration. Planners should have considered the pollution matters BEFORE granting building permits to the high-rise blocks either side of the Thames. When will we ever learn?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Nehme
"As a local resident that will be dramatically affected by this plan I find the proposition one sided and unfair to the local population. As an owner of a property I will struggle to sell and move without serious losses for a significant time period. The location is already set to be a building site for many years to come, decreasing quality of life by increasing pollution, noise and traffic. Quite how having a 24 hour building site opposite residential buildings can be approved I do not know. An expensive and unintelligent solution to a problem. The location should be moved to a non residential location at the very least. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert OKeeffe
"We believe that Carnwath Road, as a densely populated area, is a wholly inappropriate choice for the drilling and excavation shaft tor the Thames Tideway Tunnel. With work continuing for six years (and for much of that period, for twenty-four hours a day), and thousands of journeys to and from the site by heavy goods vehicles, it will blight the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of local people through noise, air and odour pollution. This includes hundreds of school children, many of whom face the prospect of spending a large portion of their school lives suffering from this pollution. We also have deep reservations about the process by which Thames Water selected Carnwath Road. Although not even shortlisted at the first phase consultation, it was rapidly elevated to the status of preferred site by the second phase consultation. Thames Water has not given an adequate explanation for how Carnwath Road suddenly became its preferred choice. Apparently Thames Water decided that the shaft could be completed with a smaller footprint than originally believed. If this is the case, then one wonders how Thames Water made such a fundamental error in the first place, and what other details of the project might be subject to the same reappraisal – the extent of pollution, or the duration of the works, for example? Additionally, one wonders whether pressure from a number of high profile figures campaigning against the use of Barn Elms has had a disproportionate impact on Thames Water’s selection process. Despite being given little notice before the second phase consultation, several thousand people raised objections to the use of Carnwath Road – many times more than objected to any of the other suggested sites – indicating the depth and strength of feeling against Thames Water’s plans. Of the other suggested sites, Barn Elms is worthy of particular mention. It was Thames Water’s preferred site at the first stage of consultation. Indeed, according to Thames Water’s phase one site information paper on Barn elms, it was the only shaft site indentified in the area as being potentially suitable. Not only did Barn Elms offer the advantage of allowing Thames Water to combine the shaft works with those to connect the sewer to the local CSO (thereby reducing the total number of sites), but Thames Water also acknowledged that “[Barn Elms] is at a distance from Leader’s Gardens and residential properties located south of Beverley Brook [...] this separation should reduce potential impacts of construction on the surrounding community...”. While the impact on a greenfield site and the loss of a number of playing fields there are regrettable, the impact on the people living on and around Carnwath Road would be real and severe. By allowing the use of Carnwath Road for the shaft site, those responsible will be guilty of the charge of “putting trees before people”."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rory Smith
"I express my view that a major construction site is not appropriate for the area and the residence. I am soon to expect my first child and the thought of bringing him up next to this project is crazy. The site will ruin our life and people around us. We have a strong and quite community and we would like to keep it that way. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Doyle
"I am a supporter of the save kemp community campaign. I don't agree with Thames waters plans for king Edward memorial park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames water should have chosen the alternative site heck ford street industrial estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the planning inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. Also as a local resident and and recovering from major life threatening illness, I use this park to relax in as its the only green park for miles. With all this noise and pollution I will have to leave free trade wharf which is very distressing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Pittam
"I think there shouldn't be a major construction site in South Fulham due to the huge negative impact this will have on my life and fellow residents in Smugglers Way developments. The huge disruption by noise pollution, extra traffic and the additional pollution that comes with this, not to mention the difficulties of travel this will create - Wandsworth Bridge for example is already overused and traffic jams and delays are a regular occurance. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sean Foo
"Proposed works causes immense disruption to densley populated local communities. An alternative site in Bow East London (owned by the applicant, Thames Water) is available, such site is much less densely populated. 24 hours per day working, even with noise abatement measures, is unacceptable as it will materially impact quality of life of local residents. Even London Heathrow is not allowed to operate 24 hours per day. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shakeel Ahmad
"I wish to present my petition in the strongest manner. As the project will have numerous downside affects to the area. These affects have already been publicised/advised. We already suffer from the presence of the recycling centre. The area is one of the most desired & central are to be used for the purposes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shivani de Chassey
"The super sewer would be a major disruption to the residents of Fulham, many of them being families with young children in the South Park Area. We have concerns regarding noise pollution, enviromental pollution and disturbance to the daily lives of so many young children resident in the immediate vicinity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shona Robertson
"My house is near it, there will be disruption with the building of it. My roof garden over looks it and it would be not only a horrible smell, and therefore a horrible place to be. My house would lose its value. All in all there is nothing good about having it in front of so many houses!!! And schools!!!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Talal Bajour
"this project is scientifically unproven yet, in the USA one state( i think its Wisconsin) tried it and years later regretted it.Its too expencive and not cost effective.It will diminish our standard of living as we live nearby.The noise, smell and disruption will be beyond tolerance for at least 7 years and beyond, not to mention the displacement of many families and businesses in the immediate surroundings.Our council tax bill will climb during these days of osterity. Please reconsider as it is insane.My family will definitely sell ou and move from this area if this project goes ahead.We pride ourselves to live in a quiet, green and civilised neighbourhood, why do you want to throw all that for an expensive horrible project which is still in the lab and under test."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tara Anne
"I disagree with the application for several reasons. As a homeowner from a neighboring street, my property value will be negatively affected by this proposal. As a mother of children at     Day School, which is located one block away from the site, I am very concerned about the pollution of the work and from the lorries traveling to and from the site during the work. Finally, as someone who commutes to work on Wandsworth Bridge Road, I am concerned about the increase in traffic on one of the busiest roads in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. I am against using Carnwath Road as a site for the proposed SuperSewer. Sincerely, Tara Griffin Anne"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Timothy Prager
"I believe that this project, in a residential community, will negatively impact the lives of the people who live in the community both contiguous to the site and throughout the neighbourhoods which are proximate to the site. It places an unreasonable burden on those who live in South Fulham and will damge their lives through increased noise pollution, vibration, addditional vehicular traffic, damage to the quiet and peacful use of local parks, a possible threat to school children. Recent noise pollution studies linking noise to increased ill health (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20326-noise-kills-and-blights-lives-in-europe.html) should guide the planning inspectorate to a decision to reject this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Timothy Ryland
"This application is ill thought out and is not the best method of achieving the desired end result. It will cause great damage to the health and welfare of the local residents by the huge increase in traffic density. It will harm local residents materially through noise, traffic disruption, pollution and prolonged disruption of streets and roads as well as having an impact on local amenities throughout the period when the works are being effected. The impact will be felt greatly by all adjoining neighbourhoods by all residents, and to an even greater extent by shops, local schools and residents close to the works for many years. The desirabilty of locating the works at a much less densely populated area with fewer schools and amenities has been overlooked or neglected. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tony Bell
"I strongly object to this outdated project of Thames Water on the following grounds: (i) Excessive cost for an out of date/vintage solution (ii) Cost to the UK economy (iii) Severe disruption for a considerable number of years to the local community (iv) Not fit for purpose (v) More suitable, less costly, less disruptive and greener alternatives available as proven by US cities e.g. Philadelphia who long ago rejected a similar costly outdated project (vi) ROB = "Rip Off Britain" = UK residents being charged a minumum of £80 per annum indefinitely in order to benefit overseas controlling shareholders of Thames Water who will ultimately own the tunnel subsidised by the UK Government = a complete and utter disgrace! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Valentina Fazzari
"I believe the traffic in Fulham is already at worrying levels. Seven years of this development would render it unsustainable. We are also worried about the impact to the riverside and the pollution this development would create."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vicky Hau
"My property abuts the land involved in the application and am concerned about pollution relating to the proposed works affecting my health especially of a respiratory nature. Also as a resident I am deeply concerned by noise coming from the property at anti social hours."
Members of the Public/Businesses
A D Willis
"It seems the decision to chose this sight has been made without adequate debate about the pros and cons compared to other sites, pros and cons to the adequacy of the technical proposal compared to other plans and the ongoing cost to taxpayers. This part of H+F is always extremely busy and part of this is due to the geographical location hemmed into a corner of the Thames. The increased traffic over a six year period will lead to gridlock and inconvenience that will be intrusive to all lives during this period. Do the actual residents of H+F benefit from this proposal - It would appear not and yet we have our own problems when there is heavy rainfall. Then there is the immediate impact on a crowded borough to a generation of school children and their parents. The only reason this should be supported is if there are no other sites and no other economic proposals that will deliver the same results. So we have foreign company proposing an expensive scheme and the holistic question is whether this is for London or their shareholders?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alastair Robertson
"There are serious doubts as to whether the proposed scheme is an effective solution to the problem it addresses and that Thames Water has given no serious consideration to the alternatives. Similarly Thames Water has given no serious consideration to the effects on the local community of siting work of this nature and duration in a heavily populated area which already suffers from heavy and increasing traffic congestion, nor has it given proper consideration to alternative sites for the shaft work. In relation to the possible Barn Elms site, which is not in a heavily populated area, it has cut and run at the first sign of local opposition and is in effect now seeking to dump a problem of its own making on Fulham, regardless of the resultant noise, disturbance and disruption to a large number of residents, schools, businesses and road users that will be hugely damaging to the community over an unacceptably long period. This is an unproven and hugely expensive scheme in the wrong place. it defies common sense and planning norms - and Thames water's approach to proper procedures and consultation has been frankly contemptuous. It appears to have made no serious attempt whatever to justify its choices and the strength of local feeling should not be underestimated. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Male
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Allan Kelly
"It is unacceptable that there will be 7 years of 24/7 disruption in a residential area. Air quality and noise will all be affected. The infra structure cannot cope. There are other greener solutions which are cheaper and much less disruptive to residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Field
"a)Lack of transparancy b)No satisfactory explanation as to why Abbey Mills site is not a suitable alternative to Chamber Wharf. c)No satisfactory explanation as to why the other alternatives are not suitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Jelley
"The Mayor of London has already acknowledged in writing that the proposals as presented will adversely affect people and properties around this site, particularly those to the west of the site along Carnwath Road. I would like to object to the proposal on the grounds that it would cause (and is already causing) unacceptable human hardship and distress that will likely lead to physical and/or psychiatric disorder. I would also particularly like to know which organization, Thames Water or Government, will take responsibility for any damage to health that arises as result of this proposal? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carole Mansur
"I have previously submitted my objections. I am a supporter of Rats, which is also submitting objections: in brief, these are noise, traffic, residential area, alternatives are feasible. Hammersmith and Fulham council are also opposed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Bristow
"South Fulham is not an appropriate site for such a large contstruction project. The roads are not suitable for the huge amount of traffic that will be generated, there is plenty of congestion as it is. The pollution that will be caused by the construction itself and the traffic will affect the many residents who live in the immediate neighbourhood, especially the children who live and go to school in the South Fulham area. The disruption of the 24 hour working on the tunnel will affect the quality of life of everyone living in the Carnwath Road area. It is an ill thought plan, especially if the construction goes ahead at the same time as the Carnwath Road/Sulivan Road project. Life will become unbearable for many people."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Harbour
"The proposed site at Chambers wharf is just across the river from us. The change of the major site to here will have a significant effect on us. The noise from the pile driving, concrete pumpming and spoil loading is likely to have a detrimental effect on us here. The noise from the centrifuding of the spoil and the loading of the barges will also be significant. The last factor will be the large number of barge movements causing noise again. The draw and wake from these movements will also negatively affect us. I would also expect that the restriction in the width of the river will have an effect on the tides, concentraing the flow in our area making it much rougher. This combined with the effect of the draw and wake from existing river traffic may have a significant effect on the moorings as a whole."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Robb
"The degree of disruption caused by this scheme - noise, dirt, traffic congestion - added to the projected timescale, means that thousands of local residents will have their lives blighted if it goes ahead. It is by no means certain that this enterprise is the best option with regard to levels of sewage in any case; there is a belief locally that this is being foisted upon us with insufficient thought for it's detrimental effects."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elliot Bialick
"As a local resident living immediately opposite the proposed Chambers Wharf site I wish to object to the noise impact that continuous drilling and loading of spoil on to barges will have on me, my family and all those living close to this proposed site. I suggest that an alternative and less popous site is used for this purpose. Failing this I propose that works creating disturbance are limited to normal weekday working hours"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Felix Fiennes
"It is inappropriate to site the Super Sewer here, not only is there no demonstrable need for this misappropriation of funds, but it is a completely inappropriate site for such a monstrosity. The works involved will destroy an already congested environment, they will ensure heavy traffic and reduce the useage of an already massively underutilised part of the river frontage, ensuring it is never used. If this work is essential (which I am not convinced it is) then why can it not be sited in an area already subject to huge works, where the impact of the actual engineering project will be less felt, where the river frontage can be built around it and people can buy into it? For example, Battersea Power Station!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Francis Ellison
"We have yet to see all the documentation and information to enable us to fully answer this question. However at this stage we would like to know why the applicant considers the Green alternative to be less attractive than that which is proposed, and We would like to know the reasons why the route of the proposed tunnel in Chiswick has been changed to run down Netheravon Road instead of under Young's corner as originally proposed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H Anthony Fenn
"I agree that any sewage spills into watercourses, particularly the Thames, should be ended as soon as possible. I disagree that the proposed tunnel is likely to provide the best or most economic solution. Significant spills will still occur. The level of disruption, time-scale and method of funding are inadequately analysed. The Carnwath Road site seems much the worst choice as a development site; the case for Barnes is much stronger. The costs are not borne by those most benefited; ownership should not be vested in a private company; there is no case for even a regulated equity return on cost for Thames Water."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Clarke
"I am concerned that not enough consideration was given to alternative and more sustainable options such as Sustainable Urban Drainage System. I am also concerned that one single big project would not have the flexibility and longevity of a multiple solutions approach."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Bullard
"I am a supporter of the KEMP Community Campaign. I don't agree with Thames Waters plans for KEMP because the impacts on the local community are unreasonably excessive, especially since there is a viable brownfield alternative. Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate because it has a far lower impact upon the local community- I strongly suggest that the Planning Inspectorate review this brownfield site instead of KEMP"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Archer-Ashenden
"I am led to believe that there is a better and more up-to-date option than this Thames Tideway Tunnel. It would be less invasive and need less land. This other option must be considered. The current plans for the Thames Tideway Tunnel will cause massive disruption of the surrounding streets, schools and dwellings. There will be an enormous amount of lorries needed for this project which will seriously clog up the roads around the Carnwarth Road, which is already very busy. Julia Ashenden"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kieran McCaldin
"I own and live in a flat directly opposite the proposed tunnet shaft with my wife and two small children & I own and let a flat slightly downriver in Battersea Reach. The noise and vibrations from drilling and construction will blight our home for 7 years, plus any delays, 7 days a week. This is far too long. There will be increased air pollution from dust and a large increase in diesel trucks onsite. This will be harmful to my young children. This work will decrease the value of my property for the next decade. My children will also attend a school very close to the site and would be exposed to the increased air pollution. Simply put this project has too big an impact for too long. A network of local sewerage works would be quicker, cheaper and cleaner to deliver."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Ivill
"I object in the strongest terms to the Chambers Wharf location of the sewer. It would be to the greatest detriment to the quality of my life and health and that of my neighbours, local shopkeepers, schoolchildren and visitors - noise, disruption, incessant traffic, pollution, increased hazards, harm to this historic area and so on - both during the day and at night for many years. This must be stopped, and a much more environmentally responsible scheme devised that will have more long term benefits for solving these sewage issues London-wide."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lise Frandsen
"I co-own   Moorings, where I also live on my vessel. I have grave concern that water-based traffic will need to pass dangerously close to my mooring and impact heavily on my mooring and my vessel, causing potential damage from heavy wash to my property. I also have serious concern that the impact of heavy wash from river traffic moving so close to my property, will make it impossible and dangerous to live on my mooring. In addition the noise generated over such a long period of time will make it difficult, if not impossible to live in my home."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Anthony
"I do not think that Chambers Wharf is a suitable construction site for the Thames Tideway Tunnel. I believe that the public will be put at an unacceptably high risk from heavy goods vehicles and general traffic entering and leaving the site. The extremely popular Thames path (a public footpath) goes right around the perimeter of the proposed site increasing the danger of pedestrians and vehicle collisions. In addition there are numerous schools in the area and the huge increase in traffic the construction will bring will endanger children outside of the school grounds. I also believe that proposed increased in noise levels, especially at night, will not be acceptable given the extremely low levels of noise we currently enjoy. (The base level for measurements) "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Matthew Blount
"I'm a disabled man; after a severe traumatic head injury some years ago with an acquired brain injury. I enjoy the peace and tranquillity of my home in Carnwath Road. I become stressed and anxious with any noise, disturbance or vibrations in or near my home. Any of those things affects my well being negatively . I'm unable to work any more. A lot of my time is spent at home, on my own, a place I consider peaceful and safe. Any major disruption would change this situation to me and would make my home very unpleasant to be in day and night. Matthew Blount "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Laurence & Mr Thierry Fournier-Foch
"We are totally against the project because we'll have a huge nuisance in terms of noise, lorries coming through, pollution, safety. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicky Allison
"Carnwath Road is currently a busy thoroughfare. I am a member of the Energie Fitness Club located in the Piper Building and park on Carnwath Road every weekday morning at 0630. Not only does this road have to cope with being a cut through to Putney, it is a parking and loading place for the Hitchcock & King flatbed lorries all day, every day. Proposing building work along this busy road for a protracted period of time will be crippling for the area. Recently there were temporary lights at the Bridge end of Carnwath Road and it was a nightmare. Traffic is already massively increased with the Barratt homes development. Surely there must be a better location for the Super Sewer proposed by Thames Water. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Omma Adjei
"I am very concerned that the super sewer construction will cause incalculable detriment to the lives of myself and my family. Our home will plummet in value and my children will suffer dust and noise pollution for around 7 years. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephanie Cryan
"I believe that the construction of the super sewer in Southwark will cause disruption and noise pollution to the residents. It will have a very negative impact on the children at Riverside Primary School with the increased traffic levels from the lorries passing to and from the construction site. The nosie pollution for residents will be untenable and I feel it Thames Water have ignored the wishes of local residents when chosing their preferred site for the construction of the sewer."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Campbell
"The years of construction will have a massive disruptive impact on not just the immediate area, but the wider part of Fulham up to and over the New King's Road. The site proposed is in a built-up residential area with schools and businesses and totally unsuitable for a project on the huge scale of the sewer. Traffic, the environment and wild life will all suffer."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Johnson
"I have attended the public exhibitions by Thames Water and meetings where they have tried to explain why the development is necessary. I am not convinced by the overall reasoning and particularly the need for using Chambers Wharf as a construction site as I believe that there are better alternatives. I do not understand why Thames Water are considering using a site in a residential area. I strongly disagree with the proposal for such a major industrial development at this site for the following reasons: - the site is in a quiet residential area which is not suitable for a major 'industrial' type development. Existing residences are adjacent to the site on all three sides. - there are a number of local schools which will be impacted by construction noise/dust/traffic plus likely to dangers to the young pupils from traffic - access roads to the site are not suitable for the level of construction traffic that will be necessary and the type of vehicles involved. As a resident of a flat overlooking the site, I cannot see that it will be possible to live adjacent to the site for the 7 years of construction and particularly during the proposed 3 year period of 24 hour working. My concerns are: - the level of noise will be unbearable during the day and prevent sleep at night - the vibrations from machinery on site will add to the disturbance - dust will be a major health hazard - lighting on the site will further disturb my sleep. The uncertainty caused by the potential development has affected the value of my property and will blight it until the tunnel work and subsequent site development is completed. I understand that this may be 13 years or 2026 before there is a reasonable chance of recouping my investment in the property. I do not understand how Thames Water are being allowed to propose such a scheme in a residential area at all. Throughout the consultation process, I strongly feel that Thames Water have failed to take account of reasonable concerns over the use of the site. They have failed to address any of the concerns over traffic, noise, vibration, dust, dangers to local school pupils and so on. They suggest that they will meet whatever requirements are placed on them in terms of mitigating these impacts but this approach is a 'minimum cost' fix it when it breaks approach. If they are unable to provide absolute guarantees on mitigating these factors, they should not be allowed to proceed. I strongly feel that they cannot provide such guarantees because they cannot quantify the impact and therefore will expose themselves to very high potential costs if they do. For example, if they were to guarantee a particular maximum noise level, they may have to stop construction if this could not be achieved. The cost would be prohibitive. Better to remain vague on these matters and deal with troubled residents along the way. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chiara Visioni
"General Statement The objector does not oppose the construction of the tunnel in principle. The objector supports the overall objective of reducing the discharge of raw sewage into the River Thames. However, it is the view of the objector that the scheme should not proceed in its present form. Objection-The Line of the Tunnel The line of the tunnel should be moved a few metres to the east to minimise the effect on private property rights caused by the necessary compulsory purchase of land. The plans accompanying the application indicate that the tunnel will be substantially constructed under the rear garden of   Abinger Road (‘the property’) and possibly pass under the rear wall of the property. To build the tunnel on this line Thames Water seek an order authorising it to compulsorily purchase 105 square metres of the subsoil under the property. The plan accompanying the application shows that the rear garden of the property ('the   garden') is faced by the rear garden of a house in Emlyn Road ('the ER garden'). The   garden is about 14 metres long from the rear wall of the house to the rear fence of the   garden. The ER garden is visually estimated to be about 30 metres long. Between the rear boundaries of the   garden and the ER garden is a strip of land which is about 17.5 metres wide. It is believed that the strip of land is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Historically the strip of land was part of a single track railway. For many years the strip of land has been used as allotments ('the allotments') which are today managed by Emlyn Leisure Gardens Association. The tunnel which has an internal diameter of 6.5 metres could be constructed entirely under the 17.5 metres width of the allotments. The advantages of constructing the tunnel under the allotments would be: (i) Thames Water would not need to compulsorily purchase any of the subsoil under the property (ii) The risk of ground settlement to the property would be reduced because the line of the tunnel would be further from the built part of the property (iii) There only buildings on the allotments are sheds without foundations so there is no risk of damage to any building on the allotment from ground settlement (iv) So far as the objectors are aware there have been no objections from those interested in the allotments to the construction of the tunnel under the allotments. Consultation so far has proceeded on the assumption that the tunnel would be constructed under the allotments. Objectors' Proposal The application should not be approved unless Thames Water alter the line of the Tunnel so that it runs entirely under the allotments. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Commercial Boat Operators Association (CBOA) (Commercial Boat Operators Association (CBOA))
"The Commercial Boat Operators Association (CBOA) represents operators of freight carrying vessels in the UK's inland and estuarial waterways and is accepted by the Government as the representative industry body. The CBOA promotes use of the River Thames and London's canals and basins for carriage of freight by barge, to relieve road congestion and reduce exhaust emissions. This is line with Government proposals for assisting reduction of road congestion in London. (See GPG 2122 - Planning for Freight on Inland Waterways www.aina.org.uk/docs/Planning4freight(1).pdf, and also the London Plan www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan; the latter for use of the 'Blue Ribbon Network' of waterways for freight). All possible use of water freight should be applied to removal of spoil during the tunnel works, and for the bringing of construction materials to the sites involved."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Romer-Lee
"I have lived in Fulham for over 30 years and have seen the traffic build to an alarming level by the continued development of the area. The construction of the sewer and surrounding area will blight the region for we are told seven years but there will certainly be on going large vehicle movements to the site once construction work has finished. The area is a residential area and should be maintained as such. We are told that there is a shortage of residential accommodation in West London - please do not waste a riverside frontage by building a sewer depot. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Morphet
"I consider that Thames Water have failed to take properly into account (a) the impact of the scheme on a densely populated urban area, especially with regard to traffic generation and traffic pollution over an extended period; (b) the adverse effect on plans for significant residential development in the vicinity. I am also concerned that effluent from the proposed stack would contaminate the neighbourhood. The whole scheme would entail an unacceptable degree of blight. More generally I am concerned that the scheme is motivated more by a desire for profit than the general amenity of the metropolis, and that alternative schemes for water management have not been properly considered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Digby Mansions (39-58A) Residents Association (Digby Mansions (39-58A) Residents Association)
"As freeholders of a block of flats situated on the riverbank, we find it completely unacceptable that there are increasingly frequent discharges of untreated effluent directly into the River Thames. This is deeply unpleasant. We can smell the sewage when we walk out of our front doors, we see it when we walk by the river and we see the adverse impact which it has on river users and wildlife alike. We support the construction of the Tideway Tunnel to help allievate this problem now and in the future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Granville & Co (Granville & Co)
"We are the Estates Management company for the Aqua Vista development, Bow Common Lane, London E3 4AX, we oversee all development issues at the site and would be representing or co-represneting the residents. Michael Andrews Estates Manager"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hammersmith Mall Residents (Hammersmith Mall Residents)
"HAMRA is largely supportive of the Thames Tunnel. We wished to see the Tideway cleaned-up. We wish to know more about the construction process, depots and local impacts in the Hammersmith Mall Conservation Area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Karp
"I live just around the corner from the main site and I believe that it will prove to be seriously disruptive in several ways. The noise, vibration and pollution from all of the construction works will interfere with my children's school which is less than a block away from the site. I am concerned that the number of lorries involved in the project and the disruption of the traffic flows in the area will make streets already overburdened with traffic even worse and will increase the danger to children walking and cycling in the area. I also feel that the discharge/ventilation will present a health hazard and a nuisance in the area. I believe that there are numerous less populated sites along the river which would be much more suitable places for an installation like this to be placed. Finally, as a property owner in the immediate vicinity I am concerned about the impact on desirability of living in the neighborhood. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Thornton
"In Phase One of the consultation on the Tunnel in 2010, Thames Water praised the suitability of their 26 acre site at the Abbey Mills pumping station in east London as the main drive site for the eastern sector of the Tunnel. Since the purchase of Chambers Wharf, they have argued that this site with riverside access would be more convenient to them. Despite the massive local impact to the community in Southwark and its local schools as well as the cross river impact on residences in Wapping, Thames Water have given no ground on their revised decision. There are ample alternatives to the use of Chambers Wharf. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jessica Davies Jones
"I live near the site and would be hugely affected by the congestion and noise, pollution and disruption. There is a MUCH better site which would hardly effect residents at Barnes Elm. This is not the best place for the sewer. It will effect my children's schools and I strongly object."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karima Taouche
"My daughter school is on   , and she walks there every day from Wandsworth round about. The pollution, increased traffic which will results from this project will means increase nuisance to her health, more dangerous roads to cross etc.. I am against this project as more and more development on river means it's already getting more traffic and this will only exacerbate it further. Best regards Karima Taouche "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Arthur
"Having lived next to the River Thames in its tidal section for many years, the thought that sewage release could be eradicated for ever is wonderful. To dump 60,000,000< tonnes of sewage annually into one of the World's most iconic treasures is barbaric. I agree with the entire concept unreservedly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marc Hearn
" "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Seymour
"Quite simply there are better alternatives: This proposed project is going to be massively disruptive and extremely unpleasant to a huge number of residents in the Southwark community for a very extended period of time (several years). Therefore this is not in the interest of the public when their are lower impact alternatives that are non-residential."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mrs Margaret Cahill
"My Concerns: I have a double garage and a right of way to Welstead Way. Garage in constant use not to be blocked I need answer's to how this work will affect me I was told it wont affect me I have sent a drawing of where the garage is. Your tunnel is right at the back of my gates This could have an effect on the foundations of my garage also I had a letter to say they may need to take soil from under my property I disapprove of this. I may want to sell my house in a year this will affect me. All of this is my concern's Margaret Cahill Link to attached plan: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/WW010001_TTTL-0007_Cahill_plan.pdf "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Botterill
"The project (which is the subject of this application) should not go ahead. It was devised some time ago and is based on an old fashioned engineered approach to management of CSO discharge and takes little account of the latest up to date experiences with Suds around the developed world including the modern approach being adopted in cities like Philadelphia. It is also disproportionately expensive and even its proponents can demonstrate only an exceedingly poor return on capital. There has been a failure to consider adequately all the environmental, social and economic aspects of this scheme. This application proposes Carnwath Rd to be used as a main tunneling drive shaft site. Yet the area around Carnwath Road is densely populated and located in the heart of an area which has had a 31% increase in population between the last two decenniel censuses. There are hundreds of homes, two schools and lots of businesses all within 300 yards! An alternative location for a drive shaft - Barn Elms has no settlement within the same radius. The adverse impact on the lives of proximate residents to Carnwath Road has not been adequately assessed and the drive shaft location strategy needs to be revisited. Similarly options for a revised tunneling strategy which removes the necessity of a shaft at Carnwath Rd (with all the dis-benefits it would bring) needs to be assessed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Professor Philip Secker
"Thames Water does not need to come to Southwark. There are no CSOs here to intercept, now that the Shad Thames CSO has been fixed, so there is no need to connect Southwark to the main tunnel. Nor does it make sense, as Thames Water proposes, to bring sewage overflow from Greenwich west to Southwark, then back eastwards to Beckton or Abbey Mills. Not only is it unnecessary, but it would inflict on the community a heavy financial, social, and environmental cost. A quiet, densely-populated residential community on the Thames Path, favoured by tourists, with three schools of high standard, would be blighted for seven years by industrial machinery, by a cofferdam jutting out far into the river, by up to 45 lorries per day and up to 50 private cars adding to the congestion on Jamaica Rd and in the Rotherhithe tunnel. And all this even though Chambers Wharf has planning permission to become one of the most admired green developments in London. There is no need for a tunnel in Southwark. This is proved by the fact that if Southwark was not available the tunnel would still be built. In order to make the use of Chambers Wharf unnecessary, a hybrid TBM, or two TBMs that dock together could be used. Such TBMs may be more expensive but that is nothing compared to building a major extra site, which may be more than £100m (with all hidden costs included). All the alternatives that the protesters are advocating have been implemented and proven by reputable companies around the world. A direct link from Greenwich to Shadwell / Limehouse is far preferable as it is more direct. If there’s no existing site that can easily make a connection in Shadwell / Limehouse then a connection can be made offshore or a TBM dismantled in the tunnel. (The Greenwich TBM is only 4.5 or 5m, compared to main tunnel of 7m). In Phase 1 Thames Water were happy to have three tunnels converging on King’s Stairs Gardens. Thames Water should use its own site at Abbey Mills to remove spoil. If necessary the River Lea can be used for 4 hours per day, storing spoil on land at Abbey Mills, and removing some by lorry, if necessary. A massive construction-site at Chambers Wharf would mean: • Blocking one of the greenest developments in London • Damaging one of the best primary schools in the country, only 30 yards away • Risking the health of a generation of Southwark school-children who attend the three schools in the near vicinity of the Chambers Wharf site • Congesting the roads for years with an extra 45 lorries and 50 cars per day – contractors’ lorries and school-children are a toxic and, quite possibly, fatal combination • Bringing disruption, noise, pollution and odour to the residents of the area • Spoiling river-views with an industrial cofferdam jutting into the Thames • Blighting the economic and financial prospects of the area for several years "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Lawson
"my property is in close proximity to the land in question and is likely to be affected by dust, noise , vibration and increased traffic congestion. As the proposed works are planned to contionue 24 hours a day and 7 days a week i suspect my quality of life will be severely affected, loss of sleep will have a detrimental effect on my work as a doctor and my ability to care for my patients with serious consequences. My property will be un-sellable during this period."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rt Hon Dame Joan Ruddock MP
"I do not object to the Thames Tunnel Scheme as a whole. However I vehemently disagree with the decision of Thames Water to site the tunnel to intercept the Deptford Storm Relief combined sewer overflow at Deptford Church Street. During phase one the preferred site was Bothwick Wharf, however between phase one and phase two the Deptford Church Street site was adopted as the preferred site. This came as a shock to many residents as the site was not part of the phase one consultation. Since its adoption as the ‘preferred site’ residents in the Deptford Church Street area feel that they have had to ‘catch up’ with the residents who were involved in the phase one consultation. I strongly object to the siting of these works at Deptford Church Street. This is one of the few patches of green space in an extremely densely populated area. The site is next to a Grade I listed church (St Pauls) and a local primary school (St Josephs). In addition to significant concerns about site noise and dust and the impact this will have on pupils, the school currently uses the site as their emergency evacuation area. The site is also in close proximity to Deptford High Street, with its busy markets and severe traffic congestion. The site is adjacent to Deptford Church Street; the current proposal is to close two lanes of this road for a considerable amount of time and have traffic use the remaining two lanes to travel north/south. At present this is an extremely busy stretch of road; it is also on the 47 bus route – one of the stops that will need to be closed is the stop for Wavelengths leisure centre (which is also the stop for the Deptford Lounge Library). There are frequently delays and traffic jams in the area. This would be further exacerbated if the development of the Convoy’s Wharf site proceeds at the same time. The developers of the Convoys site (which is on the river, north of Deptford High Street) have just put in their outline planning application – if it proceeds this will be a significant development over many years covering an area with the same footprint as the Southbank. There are also significant developments planned for both sides of the adjacent main artery, Evelyn Street, over the same period of time. I believe that the Deptford Church Street site is entirely unsuitable for the use of the Thames Tunnel project. An alternative site should be found and preferable one that has river access so that construction materials and waste could take advantage of water transport. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shalene Singh-Shepherd
"I oppose the building of the Thames Tunnel super sewer and the closing of King Edward Memorial Park for 6 years."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Thomas's London Day Schools (Thomas's London Day Schools)
"With the benefit of the last eight years of educating up to four hundred primary aged children in the immediate area of the application we disagree completely with the suitability of choosing Carnwarth Road as the preferred site for a major construction site over the inital choice of Barn Elms. The Carnwarth Road site is too small to be meaningfully self contained. The residential neighbourhood too close to the proposed site for it not to cause significant unnessesary longtern hardship to many residents in turns of pollution, noise and vibration and the traffic flow too extensive already for it not to cause significant traffic congestion to it and the wider Fulham area. We request that permission for the use of Carnwarth Road for this purpose be refused as an alternative exists."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim McIntosh
"I live directly next to the land at King Edwards Memorial Park. There are many reasons why I am opposed to the construction in our park, to list just a few. 1. I am extremely concerned about the noise that will be created with construction. It is a very quiet location in London, and the slightest noise echoes around the air and across the river. We already have barges from time to time along the river outside our building, bashing together and making large bang sounds. Whatever assurances TW might have made, please, do a test and then you will understand what an issue that is going to be. 2. I am concerned about the impact on the value of my property, and fear I will not be able to sell the property, being so devalued. Forcing me to lose money, unable to sell my property, and potential lack of sleep through construction noise creating a greater strain on my business. I am comfortable in the knowledge that there are so many reasons for TW not to go ahead with this project. Not least, they have an alternative route, but, purely out of costs they would prefer we suffer. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom Pakenham
"I oppose the entire application to build the Thames Tideway Tunnel on the following grounds: 1) It is the wrong solution to the problem of rainwater run-off. The correct solution would be to deploy a variety of available blue-green infrastructure techniques and technologies to stop or slow the progress of the rainwater from London's impermeable surfaces into the sewage system. 2) This solution would be entirely feasible without encroaching on private property through the deployment of porous asphalt on London's road surfaces in line with existing re-surfacing rates and the implementation of SUDs measures on public property only. 3) Blue-green infrastructure would also (a) be cheaper than a tunnel including through reduced infraction fines, (b) start reaping immediate benefits (as opposed to having to wait until tunnel commissioning in 2023), and (c) bring significant ancilliary benefits such as improved air quality, greater drought and flood resilience for London, reduced urban heat island effect and biodiversity and green space amenity value. 4) Blue-green infrastructure represents significantly better value for money than a tunnel that addresses a single problem, will still result in sewage release events and will be made obsolete by the increasing variability of weather patterns driven by climate change. 5) The NEEDS Report and DEFRA's cost-benefit analysis (upon which the rejection of blue-green infrastructure are based) are so flawed and prejudiced that they should be dismissed as worthless documents in the decision-making process and a genuinely independent body should be established to review the actual challenge that we face, which is how to deal with the rainwater run-off that causes the outspills (the cause), not the outspills themselves (the symptom). Indeed, all submissions made by Thames Water in this process should be treated with significant caution by PINS. 6) Having spent some time looking into this matter, it is quite clear that the government has not embraced its responsibility to the public and has instead followed the easiest route, which is to do as Thames Water has lobbied it to do. This has been exacerbated by the incorrect belief at the Treasury that the Thames Tideway Tunnel represents a positive infrastructure investment, erroneous in that blue-green infrastructure would result in the creation of far more and longer-term, local jobs and far more of the money spent would therefore remain in and circulate around the local economy. This position on the part of the Treasury is particularly surprising given the fact that the British taxpayer is expected to underwrite the cost of the tunnel despite the high level of gearing and dividend distributions made by Thames Water's owners since its sale to them in 2005. 7) The review of this application represents one of the last chances for our politicians and civil servants to recognise that the Thames Tideway Tunnel is not in the best interests of Londoners and the people of Britain. It is not too late to change course, towards a long-term, sustainable and economically optimal solution of blue-green infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tony Valsamidis
"I support the Save King Edward Memorial Park campaign. The park is a valuable, much-loved and irreplaceable local amenity. It is extensively used by local people who do not have the resources to travel easily to other parks. Thames Water should use the brownfield alternative ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Agatha Janczukowicz
"I am extremely worried about the consequences of having a construction site of this scale adjacent to my building. My concerns include the constant noise, vibration and not least of all the polution that flats neighboring the construction site will have to endure for a very prolonged period of time. I have concerns that the decision regarding the selection of Chambers Wharf as a potential site for the construction of the Thames Tunnel was rushed. Other viable alternatives that do not pose such human and environmental long term damage were not seriously taken into consideration. The Chambers Wharf area is highly densely populated and has 2 schools near by. This peaceful and green area will be transformed into a chaotic industrial zone where our community will be destroyed. Please help us convince Thames Water that the other viable alternatives such as Short tunnels where relevant with appropriate mitigation elsewhere and the use of Thames Water own industrial sites are much better in every aspect than the construction of the Tunnel at the Chambers Wharf site. Many thanks for your time and consideration. Kind regards, Agatha Janczukowicz "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Studd
"We must plan for the future and get this in place . We cannot keep pouring sewage into the river for ever"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Carter
"I believe that the project is a necessary and fundamental development of infrastructure required to improve water quality in the River Thames. Infringements of EU legislation on water quality will occur with increasing frequency and impact if the scheme does not proceed. I speak as a qualified and professional analytical chemist with involvement in environmental impacts for nearly 40 years and I must declare an interest. I started work with Thames Water Authority in 1974 and became involved in pollution control measures throughout the Thames catchment. I took part in early work on monitoring dissolved oxygen levels along the tidal Thames, and the impacts of stormwater inputs to the river. More recently I was involved at the early stages of developing the solid waste management criteria and impact assessment associated with the proposals for the tunnel scheme. Whilst I no longer participate in this work I have maintained an active interest and support Thames Water and their team in their proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Wooding
"The reasons for proceeding with the TTT are as strong as ever, namely: I love to fish the tidal stretches of Thames and further downstream the estuary is an important saltwater fishery and nursery area for sea fish stocks in the North Sea and English Channel. We have seen regular fish kills of hundreds of thousands of fish over recent years, often following summer storms during periods of low flow. London's Victorian sewers, built for two million people, can no longer cope. The city's population is now eight million and rising. In a typical year up to 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage discharges into the River Thames, and overflows are triggered by as little as 2mm of rainfall. This shameful and unnecessary scenario has created unacceptable environmental and public health hazards. The Thames and Lee Tunnels and associated improvements will tackle nearly all this pollution. The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; British taxpayers would face the prospect of hefty fines, if the tunnel is not built. It can take up to three months for sewage that has entered the uppermost reaches of the Thames Tideway to reach the sea. The CSOs discharge not just urine and faecal matter into the river, but also nearly 10,000 tonnes of litter every year including toilet paper, wipes, sanitary towels, condoms, cotton buds and other 'flushable' items. The hidden dangers include harmful pathogens, viruses and bacteria, such as E coli, hepatitis A and faecal streptococci. London's sewerage system, founded over 150 years ago, has served the capital well, but urgently needs more capacity to meet the needs of modern-day London. Although the River Thames is capable of supporting greater wildlife diversity and has won recent awards for its improved condition these were contingent on the Tunnel going ahead. Without it the river will remain an environmental and public health hazard at times of CSO discharge. Currently sewerage discharges occur more than once a week on average and in wetter years, like the one we've just experienced, the discharges can increase threefold. There are 30 rowing, canoeing and sailing clubs that regularly make use of the tidal Thames. Literally thousands of people use the Thames foreshore every day. Hundreds of thousands of tourists cruise the river every year. A cleaner, healthy River Thames is essential, not just for anglers, but for the prosperity and global reputation of London and the country as a whole. The Thames Tunnel will ensure that the excellent progress made to clean up the river will not be reversed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fishing London (Fishing London)
"I work with hundreds of local youth, clubs and associations and everyone is concerned about the water quality in the Thames tidal areas. Not only has the quality in the past killed off many fish but the water is so dangerous that any human contact could be hugely harmful to anyone close to is. The sewage network is past its sell by date. but some 30 years and 6 million people. It's need re-planning, re-routing and quickly. We should be ashamed of Londons water quality as ours falls well below that of many throughout Europe. a prime example should be New York. The fishing and water quality all around Manhatten are amazing. In fact London should be ashamed. Very ashamed. This cannot continue. Fish stocks are on the decline and any improvement in the future can help key species survive. The Thames river and estuary should be full of Bass, Mullet, Flounder, Sea Trout and Salmon but its not. Why not? It would also improve the tourist numbers on the all the areas in the Thames Estuary. Clean water could turn around the fortune of places like West Cliff on Sea and Southend. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Get Hooked On Fishing (Get Hooked On Fishing)
"Get Hooked on Fishing (GHoF) is a national charity which works with children and young people at risk of social exclusion and uses angling to improve their personal and social skills and their life chances. As a result of this our youngsters become the 'eyes and ears' of the bank and energetic environmentalists. As a responsible organisation we would like to ensure that the quality of the water in the River Thames is good for both the wildlife and its users. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Whitehouse
"This project is urgently needed to prevent further unneccessary contamination of the environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Biggs AM, London Assembly Member for City & East London
"I support the principle of the Thames Tideway Tunnel and my concerns focus exclusively on its impact on the King Edward Memorial Park, in Shadwell, Tower Hamlets East London abnd the community I represent. I have been attending meetings for about two yrwars with Thames Water, local residents, the Save KEMP Campaign, and representatives of Tower Hamlets Council, and Jim Fitzpatrick MP on this matter. My views are however my own and not those of the other parties My first position is that I am anxious that the potential for an alternative site, at Heckford Street, has not been properly explored. This would greatly lessen the impact of construction on the park and is wiorthy of greater investigation. I do not necessarily support this option because it will, i am sure, have negatives, including environmental ones and on adjoining residential enjoyment, but I regret that TW have not seriously explored it. My second position is that in the event that permission is granted for construction solely in the King Edward Memorial Park, I want the permission that follows to include a high degree of conditionality and mitigation to reduce the impact on the park both during construction and in legacy. I am pleased that TW have made progress with specifying and improving on their proposals for the park since the proposal was first announced but i believe that construction, mitigation and legacy matters sahould be examined and agreed in detail for the park. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joseph Lee
"I am not directly effected by the project as I do not live nearby, but I am interested in the engineering and environmental challenge and would like to receive updates if possible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Justin Garrett
"Anglers from across our region love to fish the tidal stretches of Thames and further downstream the estuary is an important saltwater fishery and nursery area for sea fish stocks in the North Sea and English Channel. We have seen regular fish kills of hundreds of thousands of fish over recent years, often following summer storms during periods of low flow. London's Victorian sewers, built for two million people, can no longer cope. The city's population is now eight million and rising. In a typical year up to 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage discharges into the River Thames, and overflows are triggered by as little as 2mm of rainfall. This shameful and unnecessary scenario has created unacceptable environmental and public health hazards. The Thames and Lee Tunnels and associated improvements will tackle nearly all this pollution. The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; British taxpayers would face the prospect of hefty fines, if the tunnel is not built. London's sewerage system, founded over 150 years ago, has served the capital well, but urgently needs more capacity to meet the needs of modern-day London. Although the River Thames is capable of supporting greater wildlife diversity and has won recent awards for its improved condition these were contingent on the Tunnel going ahead. Without it the river will remain an environmental and public health hazard at times of CSO discharge. Currently sewerage discharges occur more than once a week on average and in wetter years, like the one we've just experienced, the discharges can increase threefold. There are 30 rowing, canoeing and sailing clubs that regularly make use of the tidal Thames. Literally thousands of people use the Thames foreshore every day. Hundreds of thousands of tourists cruise the river every year. A cleaner, healthy River Thames is essential, not just for anglers, but for the prosperity and global reputation of London and the country as a whole. The Thames Tunnel will ensure that the excellent progress made to clean up the river will not be reversed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Martin
"South Fulham is a densley populated residential area with homes and schools in extremely close proximity to the proposed Thakes Water super sewer. The construction of which will have a massive and devasating impact on the area. It is not a suitable locatin for a major construction site. The associated noise, vibrations, pollution, increased traffic, negative effect on local house prices etc would be severaly detrimental to the area concerned."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Russell
"This proposed site is on the doorstep of people's houses and businesses and will impact on the very high number of schools nearby as well. There will be a rise in air pollution from such a large dig, and there are too many young lungs nearby. Three primary schools just around South Park, not to mention the nurseries. And the old people's residences a stone's throw away. This site will impact far too many people. Seven years of higher pollution, either directly from the works, or from the higher volume of traffic, is too much when there are vulnerable bodies around. Apologies for my grammar - lack of - very little sleep last night. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Rawbone
"As a UK resident and tax payer I am concerned that this application by Thames Water will add a burden of cost accompanied by an environmental burden with little benefit. Thames Water have not contributed, via corporation taxes, to the well being of the UK in proportion to their contributions to individual shareholders.So financially there will be little benefit, and worse still this is accompanied by an adverse impact on the environment. My recommendation is that we ask Thames Water to find another solution - possibly along the lines of the Green Stormwater infrastructure as used in the USA Philadelphia scheme. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Broadmore
"I do not agree with this scheme on the following grounds: - The destruction of King Edward Memorial Park, even if "temporary". - The design and cost of the scheme overall. A series of smaller tunnels could well be more cost effective"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr John Folkard
"As an angler I am fully aware through the angling press of the regular raw sewage discharges into the lower Thames. I feel that in the 21st century these discharges are totally unnecessary and unacceptable. The thousands of fish that are lost each time these occur is distressing. The Victorian sewers cannot cope anymore with the vast population served by Thames water and the tunnel has become an asolute necessity. Lastly, this does not look good to tourists who may be using the Thames area during their stay. Please ensure that the plans for the tunnel proceed ASAP."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Lanyon
"I have no problems with the application as such, but there is history of movement of the south river wall between Putney road and rail bridges and I am concerned that the risk of new settlement is not being properly addressed. I understand (from discussion at a 16May2013 meeting with Phil Stride etc.) that St Mary's church has received documentation on a CD indicating that it is in the Zone of Influence. My property is on the Putney Wharf Estate, which is adjacent to St Mary's, but I have not received any such communication - which indicates that this is not in the Zone of Interest. I understand that I have a legal interest in the river wall, which amongst other things protects an underground (and possibly underwater!) garage in which I have interests. Quite apart from the history, the Estate's management is concerned about an existing crack in the river wall to the extent that this is already being monitored. I am thus concerned that Thames Tunnel apparently intends to exclude the Estate from the Zone of Interest and request that it be included."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peabody (Peabody)
"I wish to register as an invested party because of the close proximity of the works to Peabody properties. we would seek confirmation that there will be no damage caused to our properties and that Thames Water complete appropriate schedules of conditions of them prior to any works commencing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Huddleston
"the proposed site at King Edward Memorial Park should be moved to the brownfield site nearby thus keeping this rare precious public green space in use ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Prem Goyal
"I wish to express my opposition to Thames Water’s planned Thames Tunnel at Chambers Wharf. I am deeply concerned by the negative impact seven years of construction will bring to the area and its community. Noise, congestion, heavy goods vehicle movements, pollution and sewage smell will all damage the quality of life for hundreds of residents living nearby. There are better alternatives to the proposed site that will not have the same impact on residents and these should be preferred over Chambers Wharf. The tide of opinion is firmly against construction at Chambers Wharf. There have been many objectors throughout the consultation period, hundreds of people have attended local meetings in opposition, and petitions have collected a considerable number of signatures both on and offline against the development. I strongly urge you to consider the views of those opposed and rule-out Chambers Wharf as a site for the Thames Tunnel. Yours sincerely, Prem Goyal "
Members of the Public/Businesses
R N Austin
"I am the owner with my wife of a riverside apartment just upstream from the Chambers Wharf site which Thames Water (TW) proposes to use as a main construction site. The impact of the proposed work will have a very significant adverse impact on my quality of life and ability to enjoy my property. Indeed it is likely to make it uninhabitable due to excessive noise which for 3 years of the proposed 7 years of construction will be continuous - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. TW’s plans for CW would have an extremely severe detrimental impact on my life and the lives of many hundreds of people who live within a short distance of the Chambers Wharf site and on the health and education of children at the high quality schools located close to the site, as well as on local businesses. TW originally proposed to use a site at Abbey Mills in East London rather than Chambers Wharf. Abbey Mils is a brownfield site on an industrial estate. The impact on people in the area would be insignificant in comparison with that caused by the use of Chambers Wharf. Furthermore it is clear that: • TW has failed to comply with requirements of the NPS, for example avoiding “significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise” • there are different ways of constructing the project which would significantly reduce, if not eliminate, impacts on local residents and schools at CW • TW has failed to thoroughly investigate these alternatives and adequately compare the relative local impacts. If CW were to be used in the way proposed by TW, its mitigation proposals are wholly inadequate, for example: • TW’s impact assessments, notably on noise, give a false and misleading impression of the true impact through the manner in which the data is presented. • TW seeks to be exempt from the ability of citizens to sue for nuisance despite accepting that noise levels will be in excess of recognised limits. This is outrageous - all citizens should retain the right to sue and the proposed exemption should be struck out of the DCO. • Quieter piling methods are referred to but can be withdrawn solely at the discretion of TW after the commencement of construction. • Although presented as a generous support for local residents, TW’s non-statutory schemes for noise insulation and compensation are nothing of the sort. They set far too high a test for almost any claimant to succeed, and are not independent as claimed. Given the significant impacts arising from the choice of CW as a construction site on the locality, an open-floor hearing should be held on the impact of the tunnel project on Southwark and Wapping to give local residents an opportunity to express their views. I also request two issue-specific hearings: • TW is proposing a tunnel drive strategy which would generate much more adverse local impact than feasible alternatives, there should be a hearing to examine the relative local impacts of the strategy. • A hearing should also be held about the proposed use of the CW site itself, so that TW’s approach to mitigation can be tested by the Examining Authority "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Nicoll
"Am strongly in favour of the Application for a number of reasons including - The Thames has become a greatly valued feature of London life and its tourist economy in particular. It is not acceptable for such a feature to be susceptible to such high levels of pollution on a regular basis following relatively low rainfall. The impact on wild life in and around the River (including fish and the invertebrates they feed on) of this pollution is unacceptable given London's prominence as a leading World City and the responsibility of developed countries to invest in the protection of the natural environment. It is unacceptable that a City with London's reputation is not complying with relevant environmental laws and regulations. The sewerage systems serving London were fine when the population was around the 2million mark but inadequate to serve the 8million plus now in the Capital and the future expected population growth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Riverside Parents and Carers Association (Riverside Parents and Carers Association)
"Riverside Parents and carers Association are appalled that the needs of children and the local community are being ignored by this unnecessary and destructive project which will extend over most of the formative years of young children in the area. Instead of the residential buildings we were promised we have a sewer, the building work and pollution from vehicles will disturb residence day and night and make living here intolerable. The dirty deal done with the local secondary school not to object to the construction provided Thames Water provide apprenticeships and money for extensions has underlined huge divisions in the community as most children attending that school do not live here. Your representatives have been cynical and rude. You have further divided the community making us choose between have your appalling project on our green land or on top our schools and homes. Many local children have asthma including many parents will be further excluded from playing by the river if this project goes ahead. Regard to 'technical necessity' we agree with the Save your Riverside campaign we believe this to be a fiction. Thames Water was instructed by government to deal with the problem of sewage overflow into the river but in Southwark there is no sewage overflow problem. We believe the motive for acquiring land in Southwark is financial. The international company that owns Thames Water has often acquired land assets which are then used for financial speculation or leverage. Thames Water have argued that there is a geological change in the vicinity of Tower Bridge that necessitates a land base. But modern levels of technology ensure that any technical problems encountered in tunnelling can be resolved in a variety of ways, depending on the will of the developer. It is the same with Thames’ plea on health and safety grounds. These would be technically ironed out before work begins. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rod Pickup
"The reasons for proceeding with the TTT are as strong as ever, namely: Anglers from across our region love to fish the tidal stretches of Thames and further downstream the estuary is an important saltwater fishery and nursery area for sea fish stocks in the North Sea and English Channel. We have seen regular fish kills of hundreds of thousands of fish over recent years, often following summer storms during periods of low flow. London's Victorian sewers, built for two million people, can no longer cope. The city's population is now eight million and rising. In a typical year up to 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage discharges into the River Thames, and overflows are triggered by as little as 2mm of rainfall. This shameful and unnecessary scenario has created unacceptable environmental and public health hazards. The Thames and Lee Tunnels and associated improvements will tackle nearly all this pollution. The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; British taxpayers would face the prospect of hefty fines, if the tunnel is not built. It can take up to three months for sewage that has entered the uppermost reaches of the Thames Tideway to reach the sea. The CSOs discharge not just urine and faecal matter into the river, but also nearly 10,000 tonnes of litter every year including toilet paper, wipes, sanitary towels, condoms, cotton buds and other 'flushable' items. The hidden dangers include harmful pathogens, viruses and bacteria, such as E coli, hepatitis A and faecal streptococci. London's sewerage system, founded over 150 years ago, has served the capital well, but urgently needs more capacity to meet the needs of modern-day London. Although the River Thames is capable of supporting greater wildlife diversity and has won recent awards for its improved condition these were contingent on the Tunnel going ahead. Without it the river will remain an environmental and public health hazard at times of CSO discharge. Currently sewerage discharges occur more than once a week on average and in wetter years, like the one we've just experienced, the discharges can increase threefold. There are 30 rowing, canoeing and sailing clubs that regularly make use of the tidal Thames. Literally thousands of people use the Thames foreshore every day. Hundreds of thousands of tourists cruise the river every year. A cleaner, healthy River Thames is essential, not just for anglers, but for the prosperity and global reputation of London and the country as a whole. The Thames Tunnel will ensure that the excellent progress made to clean up the river will not be reversed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheila Taylor
"I wish to save our community from unnecessary disruption, by arguing that Thames Water should drive from Abbey Mills instead of Chambers Wharf. This is viable and would cause little environmental impact. There is no need for a site in Southwark, as the work can be done by dismantling boring-machines offshore and under-river. This solution is supported by engineers and saves money, as well as saving our community. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Nicholas Mansfield JP
"I wish to register my view that the selection process that led to the choice of Sands End as a site for the Thames Tideway Tunnel was not adequately impartial, and was subject to influence from residents of other areas, such as Barnes. Whilst accepting the requirement that such a tunnel is, or will be, necessary in the future for the efficiency of London's drainage and sewage, the technology to be installed and used has not been described in a satisfactory manner so that the residents nearby can fully evaluate the likely impact on their environment once it has been built. Neither has due attention been paid to alternative sites along the Thames, in particular, but not exclusive to, the site in Barnes to the South and South-East of the Wetlands Centre. The Barnes site is not an area of natural beauty, and the purposes for which it is used (namely schoool sports) can very easily be reinstated once the tunnel has been constructed. Finally, the prospect of 24 hour construction and disturbance through noise pollution for the residents of Sands End, and the inevitable air pollution of the atmosphere in the surrounding area, heavily populated as it is with schools (unlike the Barnes site, which is not), makes the entire enterprise a severe health hazard, reminiscent of the criminal asbestosis disaster of the 1960s."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Shepherd
"As local residents of the Chambers Wharf site we are concerned about the impact on the surrounding area. Works scheduled to take place over many years will have a detrimental effect on residents and the schools which are located close by. We are concerned about the potential noise, smell, pollution and disruption to residents and school children especially with work planned for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."
Local Authorities
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea)
"The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Relevant Representation Development Consent Order (DCO) Implementation The implementation of the DCO will be undertaken by an Infrastructure Provider, different to Thames Water, who may not adhere to the same principles and visions/aspirations which are included in non-statutory documents separate from the DCO. Amongst those documents are the Code of Construction Practice and the Design Principles. Mitigation measures Most of the mitigation measures are included in the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) and Design Principles (DP). This does not ensure their implementation. All mitigation measures must be included in the DCO. As part of site development there are issues which will require careful monitoring and the implementation of mitigation measures. These include cumulative impacts to the transport network; air quality; land contamination; ecology (loss and disruption of habitat); the settlement of the river wall during construction and odour during operation. In most cases, mitigation measures are left to the future design options included in the contactors’ methodologies. This increases uncertainty about their implementation. It could also lead to increasing costs for the Council once construction starts with the discharging the requirements and enforcing the CoCP. The Council wish to ensure that the planned maintenance work to the vents and drop shaft head houses, every two to three months, will not be intrusive and should be undertaken only during daytime hours. Traffic regulation Within the DCO, the powers under Article 18 (Traffic Regulation) of the work provisions and the extent of the no waiting restrictions proposed under Schedule 10 are considered to be excessive. Quality of public realm The importance of the engineering part of the project is undisputed. However, the Council would like assurance that the quality of the public realm created will not be affected if the costs of the engineering project escalate. Cremorne Wharf Site The construction of the tunnel on Cremorne Wharf should not prejudice the future redevelopment of the site. The design approach is generally supported although the Council has the following concerns: • Potential changes affecting the nearby Lots Road pumping station, where the threat of settlement on the grade II listed structure is an issue - this can only be addressed through careful and responsive monitoring; and the sensitivity with which new plant equipment is placed in and around the listed building. • The site parameter plans for approval allow for positioning of new 8.0m ventilation columns within and immediately adjacent to the pumping station. The height of column is considered excessive and the possible location harmful to the setting of the listed building. The plan fails to confirm the location and size of the new electrical switch pillar. Any works undertaken should be to a high quality and preserve, if not enhance, the listed building. • The proposals do not take the opportunity to advance the widely recognised ambition for providing the Thames Path apart from leaving a gap. Given the disruption involved it is disappointing that a more comprehensive and positive proposal for reinstatement could not have been advanced. The Council objects to the loss of five on-street parking bays on Lots Road, in particular the two visitors bays on the south east side of the street, as they could be retained and used to provide additional parking for residents. The ecological enhancements of the river wall post development are supported. Chelsea Embankment Site The design approach is generally supported. The concept of a high quality public space that celebrates the axial alignment of the neighbouring grade 1 listed Royal Hospital and its riverside setting is welcome. However, the outstanding concerns are: • The parameter plans for approval allow for columns of up to 8.0m in height, which is excessively tall and visually prominent. • The plans allow the location of the new columns and other kiosks in positions that would disrupt or infringe upon the very axial view the scheme sets out to celebrate. • The designs include the permanent disruption of the distinctive boundary wall of Ranelagh Gardens, which is harmful to its appearance and unnecessary given an existing entrance near-by. • The designs could facilitate off-street parking and coach drop-off on the new open space, requiring the potential provision of signage, bollards and other deterrents that would clutter and detract from its appearance. • The quality of scheme is not assured, it fails to deliver high quality paving adjacent to the Grade II listed Bull Ring Gates, and does not cover any future maintenance regime. Pedestrians on Chelsea Embankment would be affected with walking times increasing as a result of the diversion and the need to cross the busy Embankment carriageway during construction. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim Turner
"I believe that Thames Water's plans for Carnwath Road will have a negative impact on my quality of life over the period of construction and beyond. The traffic on Wandsworth Bridge Road is already bad enough without hundreds of lorries chugging back and forth, with all the noise and pollution that entails. Traffic congestion (which is particularly bad in Fulham, due to the limited number of roads in and out of the area) is bound to increase, too. Then there's the noise - my house is only a few hundred yards from the site. As well as the daily impact, these factors are bound to reduce the value of my home, should I wish to sell it. I know the council has proposed an alternative plan to regenerate the Carnwath Road site which would have great benefits for local residents and benefits, and I believe this should be given priority over Thames Water's plans. I don't understand why Thames Water is allowed to proceed with such plans against the wishes of the elected local council. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Valerie Griffith
"I believe that if the application were to be approved, the works would cause very significant congestion and pollution to the entire South West London area. I live 1 mile from the proposed site and my son attends a school 100 yards from the site. I am very concerned about the impact of the noise and pollution on my son, who is at school from 8.15 until 4pm. This is not the peaceful environment for children to play, learn and grow in that all parents want for their children. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
William James Reed
"My concerns about the proposal come under the hedline issues of: Disruption during construction Impact upon riverside communities Loss of public open space Loss of housing Impact upon the residential environment Need Failure to consider adequately alternative proposals "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alex Petlenko
"I disagree that there should be a major construction site in Southwark. I have major concerns about the impact such a site would have on my life and those who live in this beautiful area. My main concerns are noise, vibration, pollution, sleep deprivation and impact on local traffic congestion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Matson
"There is a more appropriate alternative site. In Phase One of the consultation on the Tunnel in 2010, Thames Water identified their 26 acre site at the Abbey Mills pumping station in east London as the suitable main drive site to construct eastern section of the Tunnel. However, since the purchase of Chambers Wharf, Thames Water has argued that this site with riverside access would be more convenient to them. Abbey Mills is a brownfield industrial site and construction there would adversely impact a fraction of the number of people who will be affected by using Chambers Wharf. Despite the massive local impact to the community in Southwark and its local schools as well as the cross river impact on residences in Wapping, Thames Water have given no ground on their revised decision. In determining to use Chambers Wharf in the way it proposes, Thames Water has not fully appraised the options that would reduce the impacts upon residents. There are better ways of constructing the tunnel that will significantly reduce the impact of the project upon local residents and schools that we shall demonstrate to the Inspectorate and the Secretary of State."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Benjamin Porter
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Prior
"Putney Embankment Foreshore - Objection to the use of Glendarvon Street as a construction traffic route. I am a resident of Glendarvon Street, London SW15. Glendarvon Street is a narrow residential road, which is home to a number of families with small children. It is popular with pedestrians, rowers and cyclists, who use it to access the river. Thames Water is proposing to use Glendarvon Street as an access road for heavy construction traffic to access Putney Embankment Foreshore. I wish to object to this. It is inappropriate for heavy construction traffic to use Glendarvon Street for this purpose. A petition, dated June 2012, which has been signed by most of the residents of Glendarvon Street, together with residents from surrounding areas, was sent to Thames Water, Justine Greening MP and Wandsworth Council and representations were made to Thames Water in October 2012 and May 2013 about the unsuitability of this Glendarvon Street for this purpose and alternatives were suggested, including accessing Putney Embankment by Thames Place, which is not a residential road, and bringing in materials by river, which would have the added benefit of reducing Putney's already heavy traffic congestion and the pollution that will be caused by heavy construction vehicles. Glendarvon Street has limited residential parking, which Thames Water intends to reduce further at each end of the road, to accommodate the wide turning circle of the heavy goods vehicles contractors will be using. This will greatly impact local businesses, residents and visitors to the river and will cause cars to spill into neighbouring roads in search of the limited parking spaces in this area. Despite the petition and representations, Thames Water remains intent on proceeding with its original plan."
Members of the Public/Businesses
FoodTrade (FoodTrade )
"It seems that a low-energy sustainable urban drainage system would be a more future-proof, generous, thoughtful, and fundamentally appropriate solution to this problem. It has not be fully explored nor rebutted. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
G Hamilton-Deeley
"This proposal will make the congestion, noise and pollution in Carnwath Road, Wandsworth Bridge Road (A217) and surrounding areas much worse with 24 hour construction traffic for many years and with operational traffic permanently. Thames Tideway Tunnel sites should be made in areas that are less busy and densely populated. It is unnecessary to make use of this particular location for technical, environmental and social reasons. Thames Water should commission at their own expense, an independent health impact survey covering both the period of construction and when operational, as well as housing stock price impact surveys and make them available to all local residents. Thames Water should establish a compensation fund covering health impact and reduction in the housing stock prices likely to arise from this unnecessary proposal "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Mackay
"Principle that customers will each pay £80 pa in perpetuity to a monopoly to fund this project, without making available a range of costed options or obtaining their prior consent. Financial health of Thames Water, based on published accounts and information on website. Whether this is the best solution to the perceived problem, based on alternative proposals surfaced and Thames Water company policies. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Chambers
"I am objecting to the use of the Chambers Wharf site which is small and closely surrounded by dense residential property. The effect of noise, dust and other pollution will be impossible to mitigate and will therefore be unacceptable. The use of lorries to transport spoil will be a hazard to local residents and especially to local school children. The proposed 50m coffer dam will be an eyesore."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Colman
"• Anglers from across our region love to fish the tidal stretches of Thames and further downstream the estuary is an important saltwater fishery and nursery area for sea fish stocks in the North Sea and English Channel. We have seen regular fish kills of hundreds of thousands of fish over recent years, often following summer storms during periods of low flow. • London's Victorian sewers, built for two million people, can no longer cope. The city's population is now eight million and rising. In a typical year up to 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage discharges into the River Thames, and overflows are triggered by as little as 2mm of rainfall. This shameful and unnecessary scenario has created unacceptable environmental and public health hazards. The Thames and Lee Tunnels and associated improvements will tackle nearly all this pollution. • The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; British taxpayers would face the prospect of hefty fines, if the tunnel is not built. • It can take up to three months for sewage that has entered the uppermost reaches of the Thames Tideway to reach the sea. The CSOs discharge not just urine and faecal matter into the river, but also nearly 10,000 tonnes of litter every year including toilet paper, wipes, sanitary towels, condoms, cotton buds and other 'flushable' items. The hidden dangers include harmful pathogens, viruses and bacteria, such as E coli, hepatitis A and faecal streptococci. • London's sewerage system, founded over 150 years ago, has served the capital well, but urgently needs more capacity to meet the needs of modern-day London. Although the River Thames is capable of supporting greater wildlife diversity and has won recent awards for its improved condition these were contingent on the Tunnel going ahead. Without it the river will remain an environmental and public health hazard at times of CSO discharge. • Currently sewerage discharges occur more than once a week on average and in wetter years, like the one we've just experienced, the discharges can increase threefold. There are 30 rowing, canoeing and sailing clubs that regularly make use of the tidal Thames. • Literally thousands of people use the Thames foreshore every day. Hundreds of thousands of tourists cruise the river every year. A cleaner, healthy River Thames is essential, not just for anglers, but for the prosperity and global reputation of London and the country as a whole. The Thames Tunnel will ensure that the excellent progress made to clean up the river will not be reversed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Saunders
"As someone who lives close to the Earl Pumping Station site and whose subsoil is going to be acquired, I am keen to confirm that consideration of local residents will be a prime concern when planning the detail of the works to be carried out with particular reference to noise disruption during the work and odour control after the work is completed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michal Skrbek
"I am living in the neighbourhood and would like to have a say in what is happening in the area - particularly minimizing the pollution and bad smell impacts..."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mohammed Ibrahim
"I am a supporter of Angling Trust, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Amanda Stocker
"I feel that the Fulham section of the sewer is: not the best use of the location, not the best place for this section of the sewer, not an environmentally sound project, not a building project which our local neighbourhood needs or should have to live with 24 hours a day for all of those years, I do not think that the alternatives have been adequately considered and I feel very strongly that this whole project has cost the tax payers enough and should be shelved. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Christie
"I am disagreeing actively with Thames Water's proposal to site a Super Sewer location on Carnwath Road. For several years the whole area is going to damaged by incessant building trucks coming to and going from the site, a very serious noise issue and dust enshrouding the whole neighbourhood. This is far too high a price for the residents of the area to have to pay for a project that is neither necessary nor appropriately sited. Upon completion, there are likely to be noxious odours being emitted which is quite unacceptable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Unwin
"I live locally and I am Disabled. This is the only green park I can get to. My wife and I often go at weekends to enjoy picnics overlooking the river. It is a vital park also enjoyed by residents from Shadwell, who have no other options. Whenever I am there, the park is exceptionally well used. This includes the Children's playground where we take our own young Nephews and Nieces when they visit. The tennis courts are in demand as well as the football pitch - used for various activities. There is never a time that I go, when all the facilities are not being used. It cannot be right that a private sector firm can take over a Public Park, against such widespread opposition, particularly given the viable alternative of Heckford St Industrial Estate is available to Thames Water. Would the Planning Inspectorate please protect this important open space for East Londoners. It surrounded by locals living in flats with no other place to go to enjoy the fresh air and to give children the space to run around freely and in a save environment. It's also important as my own local space, within a distance I can reach, despite my disabilities."
Members of the Public/Businesses
No name provided on behalf of Richard Unwin
"I am a local resident and this is my local park. I use the park 3 times a week for my exercise programme and at weekends, my husband and I often take a picnic there. Flat living means green opens spaces are important, and this park with its beautiful frontage onto the River, should not be taken away from local residents. An excellent viable alternative site at Heckford St Industrial Estate has been identified, and it is proper that the Thames Tunnel should use Brownfield sites and I strongly urge the Planning Inspectorate to review the Heckford alternative as the route for the tunnel."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Prater
"Raw sewage should never be allowed to pollute the rivers or estuaries."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Weston
"I consider the problem the Tunnel addresses is important and a solution is needed. I'm inclined to think the solution proposed is appropriate, but concerned that others dont agree. I want to see what case is put forward to oppose the scheme and have an opportunity to comment on that case. In addition I'm concerned about the detail of the proposals for sites in west London. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Scott Brown
"As a resident of Fulham I do not want a major construction site on my 'doorstep' when there is other options available. Our community is a close net one and the disruption to our lives and properties with the noise, pollution, increase of traffic on our already busy streets with a project that will go on 24 hours a day for six or seven years is simple unimaginable. Our lives will be turned upside down and businesses will be ruined. There simply must be a better solution and/or site that will not be so disruptive to a community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sean Geer
"I've lived on or near the tidal Thames for most of my life. I am a keen angler, observer of wildlife and supporter of many conservation and environmental programmes, especially those involving aquatic environments; and I have fished on the Tideway for more than 40 years. I am extremely concerned about the current state of the river, especially the increasingly common sewage discharge incidents and the resulting fish kills. I am also very worried about the long-term effects of such discharge on the health of the many walkers, rowers and other recreational users of the Tideway. I am thus an enthusiastic supporter of the Thames Tideway Tunnel proposal, and am very keen to be involved in ongoing discussions and submissions regarding the project. I am happy to give personal evidence should it be required at any stage. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Bell
"A homeowner in the Bermondsey area for over 10 years, I have concerns about the immediate and long lasting effect to the area from the building works, alongside the direct impact on my property from a tunnel being built directly underneath. I appreciate the documentation that Thames Water have sent, however it appears somewhat deliberately huge so that individuals cannot consume or find the relevant information."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barnaby Perrin Aldous
"Besides the private financiers, I see few beneficiaries. The Lea Tunnel will deal with 50% of the leakages used to justify the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The same leakage shouldn't be reused to justify another project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Holgate
"I am a firm supporter of the SAVE KEMP Community Campaign. I do not agree with Thames Water's plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive and there is a viable alternative in using the Heckford Street Industrial Estate, where the impact to the community is lower and I ask the planning inspectorate to review this, a Brownfield Site up for redevelopment in any case, instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dermot Bates FRSA
"The proposed work at King Edward VII park will lead to significant long term restrictions in access to and use of the park, as well as major, unwelcome change to the waterfront. It will no longer be possible for me or my family to use the park. As a resident in Pear Tree Lane, me and my family will suffer excessive disturbance and increased pollution during the six year construction period as well as experiencing greater risk of road traffic accidents. I suffer from both   &   . I make extensive and regular use of the park and hard surfaces as part of my therapeutic regime. Its effective loss will be a significant set back to me. Moreover I understand that alternative sites addition to "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Garry Hall
"I would like to briefly state that I am a retired fire officer and have dealt with fires along the river. The smell and waste is extremely offensive and a good example of how London was one hundred and fifty years ago. When the city and suburbs were cleared and sewers installed there was a dramatic change that enabled the area to flourish. Improving the lower river is extremely important and will it improve the habitat for all the flora and fauna in the area. The change will not only be beneficial for the future but it will rapidly change the use of the estuary and river for those who enjoy it. I have walked the banks and fished from a boat on the lower Thames and the amount of suspended rubbish is surprising. When there has been a large release of sewage it is immediately evident and I usually leave the river. I would ask all interested parties to spend some time where Barking Creek enters the Thames. At high water the smell is strong but as the tide ebbs you do not want to be in the area. Much of the waste is stalled and deposited by the incoming tide and fouls the area. I could provide more comprehensive summary but the constraints of the site prevent this. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geraldine Tickle
"I am concerned in the proposal in so far as it concerns the King Edward VII Memorial Park (KEMP). I own a flat in Free Trade Wharf (FTW). I am concerned that my family and I will be adversely affected by water borne noise and dust arising from the development works as well as by disturbance to the already congested traffic situation outside FTW. I am also concerned at the loss of KEMP as an important amenity for us and other local residents and local children. I believe that there is another viable alternative (Heckford St) to development of KEMP which is being ignored despite the serious adverse impact on KEMP, on residents of FTW and the wider community which the plans would inevitably involve. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hugh Barnard
"I disagree with the complete approach of build what is effectively a 'buffer' to contain excess flow: 1. The project is essentially financial engineering whereby cheap government monies are used to build an asset that is placed in private for-profit hands and used as a source of revenue. Therefore I object to the organisation and financial/legal structure of the project 2. The alternatives [I'm a proponent of SUDs used effectively in several US cities] have not been seriously [amounts of money/time spent compared to the 'chosen' solution, for example] for the reason outlined point 1. 3. The proposed solution is highly finite in that increasing population/water usage/paving would be capable of overwhelming it and thus, the process starts again. 4. There's a great many destructive effects on the riverside, green areas and bits of the Thames whereas a 'green' solution would bring benefit to the city, also. 5. The European Commission is now actively promoting green solutions and this is basically a 19th century solution tacked on to an ageing sewer system in order to obtain private revenue for shareholders from London's citizens."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Isabella Cant-Kaleta
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. The Community will be badly affected if the plans go ahead. Hundred of people from local areas use the park, people from Canary Wharf and further afield. THere are not that many parks in the area and this is where i come to exercise, walk my dog and play with kids. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacob's Island Resident's Association (Jacob's Island Resident's Association )
"I believe more can be done to minimise disruption to Southwark residents by: 1) boring the tunnel FROM Abbey Mills and FROM Battersea, with the boring machines meeting in the middle and beeing dismantled, with no Southwark site being required, or: 2) boring to Chambers Wharf FROM Abbey Mills."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jason Bowsher
"I strongly object to the current plan. The proposal does not seem good value for money for the UK or local populations and the Chamber Warf site is not a suitable location due to size, health & economic impacts on local residents and primary schools. Alternative solutions have been proposed but these do not seem to be realistically considered in relation to the overall benefit for London and the UK. The current financial sector debt models and the way in which water bills (TAX) are set, means that the new private sector equity owners of Thames Water since 2006 will have an objective to increase profits derived from the public and the currently proposed Thames sewer seems to be the best solution to maximize the private companies profits rather than the best value for money solution for London and the UK. This solution will result in detrimental socio-economic impacts on local populations and educational establishments as well as long term financial impact on London as a whole and exposure of significant financial risk to the UK government. The Chamber Wharf site appears to be blocking a root of a more wealthy component of the Southwark region integrating with the poorer component, as a result of the long term Southwark regeneration project. The regeneration potentially assisting in the improvement of local education and socio-economics and the area in general. Building of the sewer component in this location is most likely to drive out the integration of wealth. The construction at this site is almost certainly going to drive down the value of residential properties both during construction and operation as it is almost certain that given a like for like property the same price would not be paid for one located next to a sewer facility compared with one not. The site is adjacent to a primary school which is one of the highest rated in the UK. The concern during construction would be the educational socio-economic impact on the children during education and the resulting rest of their adult life. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Salt
"The reasons for proceeding with the TTT are as strong as ever, namely: • Anglers from across our region love to fish the tidal stretches of Thames and further downstream the estuary is an important saltwater fishery and nursery area for sea fish stocks in the North Sea and English Channel. We have seen regular fish kills of hundreds of thousands of fish over recent years, often following summer storms during periods of low flow. • London's Victorian sewers, built for two million people, can no longer cope. The city's population is now eight million and rising. In a typical year up to 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage discharges into the River Thames, and overflows are triggered by as little as 2mm of rainfall. This shameful and unnecessary scenario has created unacceptable environmental and public health hazards. The Thames and Lee Tunnels and associated improvements will tackle nearly all this pollution. • The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; British taxpayers would face the prospect of hefty fines, if the tunnel is not built. • It can take up to three months for sewage that has entered the uppermost reaches of the Thames Tideway to reach the sea. The CSOs discharge not just urine and faecal matter into the river, but also nearly 10,000 tonnes of litter every year including toilet paper, wipes, sanitary towels, condoms, cotton buds and other 'flushable' items. The hidden dangers include harmful pathogens, viruses and bacteria, such as E coli, hepatitis A and faecal streptococci. • London's sewerage system, founded over 150 years ago, has served the capital well, but urgently needs more capacity to meet the needs of modern-day London. Although the River Thames is capable of supporting greater wildlife diversity and has won recent awards for its improved condition these were contingent on the Tunnel going ahead. Without it the river will remain an environmental and public health hazard at times of CSO discharge. • Currently sewerage discharges occur more than once a week on average and in wetter years, like the one we've just experienced, the discharges can increase threefold. There are 30 rowing, canoeing and sailing clubs that regularly make use of the tidal Thames. • Literally thousands of people use the Thames foreshore every day. Hundreds of thousands of tourists cruise the river every year. A cleaner, healthy River Thames is essential, not just for anglers, but for the prosperity and global reputation of London and the country as a whole. The Thames Tunnel will ensure that the excellent progress made to clean up the river will not be reversed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Konstantin Torgov
" I own the property situated at   , and which I believe will or might be affected by the application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marilyn Earl
"I feel this method of cleaning up the river is ineffective and is not financially viable. Many experts have stated that it is not the right answer to the problem. As for situating it in Fulham, one of the most densely populated boroughs, in an area where there are several schools, traffic in this part of the capital is already very heavy, resulting in huge traffic jams and delays. If Thames Water propose to bring in even more heavy traffic the area will grind to a standstill. Why situate this in South Fulham? The whole project is vastly overpriced, and the disruption it will cause to the long suffering residents of Fulham with the increase in traffic, loss of quality of life, drop in property prices and if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction, the resultant stench will be unbearable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Melissa Longley
"I do not think there should be a major construction site in South Fulham. The noise, pollution and disruption to local residents, schools and businesses is in my mind unnecessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miss Susy Thomas
"I believe that the noise from processing the spoil on site and loading it by conveyor onto barges will seriously affect my flat on the riverside. I have read that acoustic engineers confirm that the amplification of noise across the water will make a severe impact. Considering this will be such a long term project, it seems unacceptable to expect us to live with that for such a long time when there seem to be other, less imposing alternatives available. It also seems a great shame to have such an eyesore causing so much noise pollution to the many thousands of tourists who visit Tower Bridge each day. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs R Troop
"I enjoy using the park and do not want it to close for several years. Surely there must be an alternative site?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Saunders
"- interference with the Thames foreshore - using the park as a place for spoil would render the park impossible to use - in a densely urban area there are no alternative green spaces - the inspector must have regard to the health of those affected by the proposal. The health of those affected by the proposal would be very negatively affected because they would have nowhere to exercise in a green space - the disruption - I reserve the right to add grounds "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon J Humphries
"I am concerned that the tunnel construction may cause settlement, which may, in turn, adversely affect NY property."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Day
"I use the park frequently and it is the only green space in the area that has a large open park that faces tge river aswell as having space for football..children etc. Don't take yet another space away from this community. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart McAlpine
"I'm a fisherman and I'm interested in the effect that the Tunnel will have on local London wildlife. I generally agree with the construction of the Tunnel as sewage discharges from London's existing Victorian sewers are detrimental to fish and other wildlife in the London area. Additionally, I work at Hatfields SE1 - a few minutes walk from Blackfriars Bridge - and spend a considerable amount of time every week on the South Bank. Any developments and disruptions there are of interest to me."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Powell
"The proposal to interconnect to the tideway tunnel via King Edward Memorial Park is the wrong choice. An alternative brownfield site is available which will not entail the loss of the park as an amenity for a planned period of 6 years. The park represents a very scarce leisure amenity used by large numbers of residents all year round in an area where alternatives are very limited. The high density of local housing means that for a large proportion of the local population this is their only outside space and venue for outdoor recreation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Fairleigh
"My interest relates to possible ground settlement which may affect my flat at Battersea Reach, which is on the south bank of the river in Wandsworth"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alastair and Edwina Eliott Lockhart
"Our apartment overlooks directly onto Brewhouse Lane and is our principal residence. The compulsory purchase of it would have a negative impact on our lifestyle. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Hilton
"The planned promontory will be no more than 30m from my apartment. It will block my line of sight. It will also create 24/7/365 noise and light pollution, and will create noxious fumes and dust. Whatever route is taken into and out of the park, there will be an unacceptable increase in heavy construction traffic, as well as the obvious (and much discussed) destruction of the park itself - which is the only green riverfront ion the East End of London. To objective assessors, the choice of the park as the building site was inexplicable,. I have myself heard (and would testify to that effect) from a senior TW employee that the company would never have chosen the park in the first place except that local politicians indicated that it was their favoured location. Those same politicians had never polled local opinion (and, I assume, live nowhere near the park); when public opinion was polled (inadequately and belatedly) it made it very clear that the location was unacceptable. At that point, local politicians changed their view - but (apparently) too late."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Wales
"The implementation of the Thames Tunnel project should be conducted without any detriment to the usage or value of the properties adjoining the river or in the neighbourhood of the works."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Archie Campbell
"I don't think it will be great for my area. We already have the building works at the new Sainsburys which building trucks blocking my road as well as sainsburys lorries and queues for the health club. With the introduction of the Barclays bikes into what little space there was available on William Morris way I don't know how we will cope! "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Barnes Community Association Environment Group
"While the Barnes Community Association Environment Group does not accept that the proposals for the Thames Tideway Tunnel represent the the most modern and cost-effective solution to the problem of unacceptable discharges of sewage to the river Thames, it concedes that the proposals form a valid, if Victorian, solution and wishes to join with Thames Water in mitigating any ill effects that the Tunnel or its construction may have on the area of Barnes. In particular it will seek an investigation into the West Putney CSO that might permit a Blue/Green solution to the area feeding this CSO or any other modifications that could lead to the abandonment of work on the Barn Elms Playing Fields. It is also interested in securing the least possible disruption to the residents of North Barnes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Everett
"CONSTRUCTION NECESSARY SO AS TO PREVENT FUTURE DISCHARGES OF UNTREARED SEWAGE INTO THE RIVER"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Battersea Reach Residents (Battersea Reach Residents)
"The Battersea Reach Residents' Association represents the leaseholders at Battersea Reach - about 600 leaseholders. Our concern is how to deal with, and to advise those leaseholders who may seek advice, on the ground settlement which may be cause by the sewer tunnel and which may impact on any part of Battersea Reach"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Busy Bee by the Bridge Nursery School (Busy Bee by the Bridge Nursery School)
"I own the nursery school which operates in the hall attached to St Mary's Church. Our entrance and play area are in the garden beside the river bank. Outdoor play is a critical part of children's development and is a requirement by Ofsted. Any major works being carried out on the embankment beside the church garden are obviously going to seriously affect our nursery and we are hugely concerned about the proposal to have any working on this side of the bridge."
Other Statutory Consultees
Canal & River Trust (Canal & River Trust)
"The Canal & River Trust (the “Trust”) is a statutory undertaker that owns and is responsible for about 2,200 miles of canals and rivers in England and Wales, including Prescott Channel and the Limehouse Cut which links Limehouse Basin in London Docklands and the River Lee Navigation. The Trust has recently taken over the assets and statutory responsibilities of the British Waterway Board. The Limehouse Cut is part of the River Lee Navigation, classified as a commercial waterway for the purposes of section 105(1)(a) of the Transport Act 1968 which imposes a statutory obligation on the Trust to maintain the navigation in a suitable condition for use by commercial, freight carrying vessels of set dimensions. In addition, the Trust is a registered charity with a number of charitable objects including the preservation, protection, operation and management of inland waterways for public benefit and the protection and conservation of buildings and structures in the vicinity of or associated with inland waterways, including the historic Limehouse Cut, the oldest navigation in London. Part of the tunnel is proposed to run under the beds of Limehouse Basin, the Limehouse Cut, the Lee Navigation and Prescott Channel and the Trust is concerned for the integrity of these assets in the light of the potential for the tunnelling to cause settlement. The Trust has seen a copy of the Conceptual Design Statement assessment of river walls along the tunnel route and the Approval in Principle of the British Waterways river/canal walls assessment relating to tunnelling-induced ground movement on river/canal walls, by the Promoter’s consultants. The above reports show up to 10 mm of settlement at Bow and Limehouse Locks (interpolated from the River Walls AIP) , up to 20mm of settlement at Three Mills Lock (interpolated from the River Walls AIP) and up to 10mm settlement generally along the length of the Limehouse Cut. It should be noted that the Trust has not yet been able to independently check the above settlement figures. The Trust is extremely concerned that the predicted settlements resulting from construction of the proposed tunnel could have a major adverse effect on its assets. Of particular concern are the Trusts mechanised assets - Narrow Street Swing Bridge, Limehouse Ship Lock, Bow Locks and Three Mills Lock. These are substantial structures ranging in age from three to over a hundred years old and, by their nature are extremely susceptible to localised ground movements. For example Three Mills Lock as well as permitting navigation also performs a strategic role in the management of flood risk in the Lower Lee Valley. We do not have accurate information on the numerous waterway walls along the Limehouse Cut, some of which may date back to the opening of the canal in 1770. This means that it is difficult to accurately predict how these sensitive historic structures will react to localised ground movement. Due to the historic and sensitive nature of the potentially affected assets it may not be possible to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Trust that there will be no adverse effect on its assets. In order to mitigate this risk the alignment of the tunnel should be amended to ensure that the Trusts assets fall outside the predicted 1mm settlement contour. Until the Trust is fully satisfied that the implications of any settlement caused by the tunnel can be adequately mitigated, we have no option but to object to this proposed scheme and to request that the Promoter pursues an alternative route for the tunnel. We refer to section 127 of the Planning Act 2008 which prohibits the compulsory acquisition of operational land held by the Trust or rights in that land in the light of a relevant representation by the Trust that has not been withdraw without a certificate from the Secretary of State that the land or interests can be purchased and not replaced without serious detriment to the carrying out of the Trust’s undertaking. Given the major concerns we have set out above, we do not see how the Secretary of State could legally provide such a certificate in respect of the land proposed to be compulsorily acquired under our assets. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Capitalstart Limited
"Thames Tideway Tunnel Representation to the Planning Inspectorate by Capitalstart Limited 1. Introduction 1.1. Capitalstart Limited (“Capitalstart”) own restaurant premises in Putney immediately adjacent to a site selected by Thames Water Utilities Limited (“TW”) for the combined sewer overflow (CSO) known as C06XK. 1.2. Capitalstart would strongly urge the Planning Inspectorate to consider the following matters as principal issues for examination: 1.2.1 the need for a replacement Combined Sewer Outfall (CSO) and connection to the new tunnel at Putney and whether alternative engineering solutions would be more appropriate; and 1.2.2 the selection of site C06XK as the location for connecting the Putney Bridge CSO to the main tunnel and whether an alternative site to the east of Putney bridge would be more appropriate. 2. The need for a replacement Combined Sewer Outfall at Putney Bridge 2.1. Capitalstart considers that TW has failed to demonstrate the need for a Combined Sewer Outfall at Putney Bridge. In particular, the application documentation fails to consider the following alternative and more appropriate solutions: 2.1.1 increasing capacity using land based sewers; or 2.1.2 providing a transfer culvert from the Thames foreshore to the proposed CSO at Bell Creek. 3. The Selection of Site C06XK for a replacement Combined Sewer Outfall 3.1. Capitalstart strongly disagrees with the selection of site C06XK and submits that a site to the east of Putney Bridge would be more appropriate. Capitalstart considers that site C06XJ (which later became known as site C06XM) or a site to the east of the slipway to the east of Brewhouse Lane (a site never considered by TW) would be more suitable for the following reasons: Heritage and Environment 3.2. Capitalstart considers that the appraisal of heritage sensitivities for the various shortlisted sites is flawed in its approach and methodology as: 3.2.1 the TW appraisal does not recognise the greater sensitivity of the riparian landscape west of Putney Bridge; 3.2.2 TW does not correctly assess the current setting of St Mary’s church relative to the wider landscape, including its heritage characteristics; and 3.2.3 TW does not have adequate regard to current planning documents reflecting the particular importance of the area upstream from Putney Bridge (land and water). 3.3. As a result the relative sensitivity of CSO6X has not been properly understood and impacts weighted accordingly. Capitalstart will, accordingly, submit evidence correctly considering the impact of TW’s proposals on the way the area appears and functions, having regard to relevant land use planning designations as set out in the development plan and material considerations (for example, supplementary planning guidance and best practice guidance including, but not limited to, English Heritage's Guidance on the Settings of Heritage Assets). Engineering 3.4. Paragraph 4.4.42 of the Final Report on Site Section process finds the site east of Putney Bridge (CO6XM) as being suitable from an engineering perspective whilst both sites to the west of Putney Bridge are considered less suitable. Insufficient weight has been given to this fact in the final choice of site selection. Property 3.5. In its own analysis, TW states that site C06XM is less suitable in terms of property “due to risks of discretionary purchase costs”. Capitalstart believes that the relevant land is public highway and as such there are no discretionary purchase costs for site C06XM. Socio Economic and Community 3.6. The site section process still demonstrates insufficient analysis of the socio-economic impact of the proposed development. Planning 3.7. Thames Water’s appraisal of planning sensitivities of the various sites does not have adequate regard to current planning policy and, in particular, Special Policy PL9 of the Core Strategy and policy DMS2 of the Development Management Policies Document. There is also no economic impact assessment (as required by the NPPF) as part of the site selection methodology. Section 48 Consultation and TW Response 4. Capitalstart submitted a very detailed report to TW following the section 48 publicity and it is clear that TW’s site selection report does not adequately address the issues raised in Capitalstart’s consultation response. As such, Capitalstart considers that an open floor hearing (with the opportunity for cross-examination) is essential to test TW’s evidence both of the need for and location of any CSO and tunnel connection at Putney Bridge. Asserson Law Offices For and on behalf of Capitalstart Limited 17 May 2013 "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Littmoden
"I would ask that Imperial Wharf be included in the Zone of Influence."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Turner
"I support the proposal on environmental and health grounds. The Thames is a major environmental asset and should be protected at all costs from the harm and damage that is caused by sewage discharge."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Hallmark
"I oppose this application on two main grounds: 1. This is a dense residential area - the noise, pollution, and disruption would make life intolerable for thousands of local residents over a very long period of time 2. There are greener, cheaper alternatives to the sewer that Thames Water has not considered "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Councillor Christine Percival
"I am not against the application per se, but as the owner of a property under which the tunnel may be drilled and as a councillor for the Barnes Ward of the London Borough of Richmond I wish to be kept informed of all aspects of the planning process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
D Spring
"I feel any compulsary removal of residential boats from Nine Elms Pier is unwarented and can expand on this if necessary. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr George Fieldman
"."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Philip Ting
"I just want to be kept informed of any future plans and have a say should issues arise at a later date."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emily Curtis-Harper
"I would like to save King Edward Memorial Park. It is a beautiful park that members of the community appreciate and adore. It is my only local park and without it there are no opportunities to play tennis locally. There are limited numbers of green spaces in this part of London and it is a welcome escape from concrete council flats. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Esther
"- Will down grade the value of our properties, for which we have work so hard to invest and are still pending on high mortgages to be paid over next +20 years. - High air & noise pollution for minimum 7 years - 24hrs a day - 7 days a week - for all our family members, including kids -> Noise causes sleep deprivation and this is highly related to increased levels of anxiety, anger and severe depression for all population near big noise sources - including kids and teenagers, not only adults. - Disturbance for school noise, traffic and pollution - no mentioning dangerous accidents - for all +1000 kids attending schools at nearby Hurlingham/St Thomas/Maire Ecole/etc schools (all about 1/2mile from the site) - Potential contamination and ground damages caused by digging and under tunnels that might affect mid/long term the ground of our property + out streets -> Who will pay for those loses in years to come and street refurbishments? - Air pollution and smell. Who secures this will not impact our quality of life? That this will not increase health hazards (like asthma in our kids)? Who would secure that? Who would prevent it? Who would pay the bills for treatment? Why do we have to take any risk in our help with fumes and vapors?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Francis Mitchell
" It has been established that the Thames Water Project will take some seven years to complete. THe main shaft will be worked on, 24hours a days, seven days a week.The disruption this will cause to so many residents, schools and local business is simply unacceptable. It has been proved that there are cheaper and greener ways of solving this problem. A fifty foot chimney is included in Thames Water Plans, this permanently exhausting sewage fumes into the atmosphere will contravene the clean air act. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gabriella Parker
"I have lived close to Chambers Wharf since 1997 .This is a very quiet area . The choice of Chambers Wharf as the second largest site in the Thames Tunnel project begs belief. How could anyone think of constructing something like this metres away from people's homes and schools. Thames Water's lorries and vehicles will dangerously pollute the air that the children in the close-by schools and local residents will be breathing for years, affecting their health irrevocably.How can we cope with the noise from drilling,the treatment of escavated material,the loading,the pulleys that will work day and night for so many years. Exposure to noise is a major cause of mental illness. Is this a safe environment for local children and residents : extremely polluted air and endless noise? There are alternatives,please, ask TW to review their choice of site and PUT PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geri Carden
"I am concerned about possible settlement risks and damage to the wall adjacent to the River and the Putney Wharf development, as well as any discharge or disturbances that the work may cause."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Martin
"Represent by residents association of Putney Wharf"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hazel Paes
"Registering in order to follow progress on the planned super sewer development which I oppose due to its negative effects on the local community and wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Henry Pelly
"This major construction site is only 100m from where i live and will have a huge impact on my quality of life with regards a huge increase in traffic, noise and pollution. This is a densely population residential area with schools close by. Thames Water should consider other sites where a smaller number of people will be affected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Arnott
"The tunnel is essential for the conservation of the River Thames. The existing methods of dealing with sewage are inadequate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J R Attar
"I support the Tideway Tunnel project and I think that Kirtling Street is a suitable site, so long as all the other river-based activities can continue in these parts, but I do have concerns that deals will be made behind the backs of boat owners in Nine Elms."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Haines
"I strongly object to the Carwarth Road site being used for a construction site in connection with the building of the Tideway Tunnel. The proposed works comprise a massive civil engineering project the likes of which are wholly inappropriate in a densely populated residential area. It is so obvious that such a huge construction site generating an enormous increase in lorries and other road traffic in an already congested part of London is totally unacceptable to the thousands of local residents. A construction site of this magnitude has to be sited away from homes and schools. The proposals are for up to 7 years work - that's as long as building an Olympic Village on derelict land - in the middle of an established residential area with existing traffic congestion and resultant fumes and pollution. The introduction of a construction site which would generate pollution and noise on a massive scale is crazy and wholly unfair to the local population let alone the increased traffic from thousands of lorries which would severely affect Wandsworth Bridge Road. This would create a large and unacceptable increase in exhaust fumes which would be breathed in by thousands of people over a 7 year period. This is a monstrous proposal which cannot be allowed in this residential area. This Olympic sized project cannot be allowed to ruin our part of Fulham. There are no merits whatsoever so please reject this planning application and side with the local residents/ ratepayers who don't deserve to suffer for Thames Water's profit ... that's the real reason Thames Water want this site ! Many thanks."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joelle Hallmark
"Please do not go ahead with this. Our lives will be made really miserable with the impact of this. We've had Imperial Wharf development and now Sainsburys which are all for the good of the area but these have caused huge increases in traffic and pollution. We can't take any more. Our lives and commuting will be pretty unbearable. Already Carnwarth Road gets blocked up by lorries for the builders merchants. This is not fair to our neighbourhood which is a lovely place to live and has a great community. Please please stop this as there are alternatives. There is not one resident who supports this and every resident will be affected negatively. This cannot be right."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Donovan
"this proposal has been superseded by current informed thinking and there are better solutions available. even if you persist with this sewer there are far more appropriate sites that will cause less disruption and damage!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jon-Selous Borlace
"I think that King Edward Memorial Park should be protected from destruction. It is my only local park and is the only place where I can relax and enjoy the fresh air and get some exercise by playing tennis. In a part of London that is so deprived I think that it is vital that we keep this gem. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Justin Kandiah
"I disagree due to overwhelming evidence that alternatives would be cheaper and more effective. The 7 years would have a massive negative impact on my life as I live directly opposite and on the border of the land. Traffic is already at unacceptable levels and a development only 400 yards away has had a knock on effect. The noise will be intolerable and Thames Water are only offering secondary glazing and even then only after a means testing process. The air quality will be effected terribly and the current review views will be ruined and all this unnecessarily. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karina Olliver
"I disagree with the risk of settlement near Putney Wharf Tower. I request that Putney Wharf Tower Estate be included in the Zone of Influence."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katharine Austin
"I am the owner with my husband of a riverside apartment just upstream from the Chambers Wharf site which Thames Water (TW) proposes to use as a main construction site. The impact of the proposed work will have a very significant adverse impact on my quality of life and ability to enjoy my property. Indeed it is likely to make it uninhabitable due to excessive noise which for 3 years of the proposed 7 years of construction will be continuous - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. TW’s plans for CW would have an extremely severe detrimental impact on my life and the lives of many hundreds of people who live within a short distance of the Chambers Wharf site. It would also have a similar impact on the health and education of children at the high quality schools located close to the site, as well as on local businesses. TW originally proposed to use a site at Abbey Mills in East London rather than Chambers Wharf. Abbey Mils is a brownfield site on an industrial estate. The impact on people in the area would be insignificant in comparison with that caused by the use of Chambers Wharf. Furthermore it is clear that: • TW has failed to comply with requirements of the NPS, for example avoiding “significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise” • there are different ways of constructing the project which would significantly reduce, if not eliminate, impacts on local residents and schools at CW • TW has failed to thoroughly investigate these alternatives and adequately compare the relative local impacts. If CW were to be used in the way proposed by TW, its mitigation proposals are wholly inadequate, for example: • TW’s impact assessments, notably on noise, give a false and misleading impression of the true impact through the manner in which the data is presented. • TW seeks to be exempt from the ability of citizens to sue for nuisance despite accepting that noise levels will be in excess of recognised limits. This is outrageous - all citizens should retain the right to sue and the proposed exemption should be struck out of the DCO. • Quieter piling methods are referred to but can be withdrawn solely at the discretion of TW after the commencement of construction. • Although presented as a generous support for local residents, TW’s non-statutory schemes for noise insulation and compensation are nothing of the sort. They set far too high a test for almost any claimant to succeed, and are not independent as claimed. Given the significant impacts arising from the choice of CW as a construction site on the locality, an open-floor hearing should be held on the impact of the tunnel project on Southwark and Wapping to give local residents an opportunity to express their views. I also request two issue-specific hearings: • TW is proposing a tunnel drive strategy which would generate much more adverse local impact than feasible alternatives, there should be a hearing to examine the relative local impacts of the strategy. • A hearing should also be held about the proposed use of the CW site itself, so that TW’s approach to mitigation can be tested by the Examining Authority "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kirstin Contaroudas
"I strongly object to the proposal of the Thames Tunnel in general and in particular using Carnwath Road as a main construction site. I do not think the Thames Tunnel is the solution; there are viable alternatives compliant with EU directives which are less costly and less disruptive to Londoners. Selecting Carnwath Road as the main drive shaft site for the project because it is a brownfield site is highly misleading and in my opinion politically motivated. Reviewing Thames Water own published site selection criteria would deem Carnwath Road as unsuitable, especially against the community section, seeing that this is such an important category. Carnwath Road is a densely populated residential area with pockets needing regeneration. The proposed site is closely bounded by mixed housing and is home to a thriving commercial business park providing 150 jobs. The lives of all residents next to Carnwath Road, of whom there are at least 1,200 within 175 metres, would be blighted in several ways for many years by needless noise and vibration, residential disruption, construction dust, loss of property value, traffic congestion and pollution. The impact of these would be particularly serious for those in the several social or sheltered housing blocks bordering the site and the junior school with 320 pupils within 90 metres of the site. Thames Water must place due weight on the number of and demonstrable concerns of those people whose daily domestic lives, or livelihoods, would be most badly and consistently affected. I have been a local resident for over 13 years and live with my young family mere metres away from the proposed site. I believe our quality of life will be hugely impacted daily and permanently, and it will become untenable continuing to live with works taking place for seven years and at times 24/7. I urgently ask you to reconsider the project as a whole and Carnwath Road as a viable selection for the main drive shaft site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kyra Van Den Bosch
"I live near the site and my children go to school adjacent to the site. Traffic, noise, air pollution and ground disturbance are all factors which we are hugely concerned about. It will be cause tremendous congestion in the area and will be dangerous for our young primary school children, in addition to causing huge problems for local traffic. Air quality will be affected and is a concern for those suffering from asthma and other allergies."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Irwin
"The site is located in an intensively populated area. There are thousands of school children attending schools within close proximity to the site. Many travel UN escorted on foot and will be subject to increase risk due to the traffic flow/heavy goods volume associated with the works. The routes in volume across Wandsworth bridge are heavily congested. When works are completed near Sainsburys and the gas depot, this will be intensified. Your efforts will be dangerous, cause additional pollution (inhalation). There are better community focused uses for the land. There are greener solutions. Yours is not progressive nor suitable for the area nor task. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynn Waunford-Brown
"I do not agree with the super sewer and believe it will be most disruptive to local schools and an unnecessary cost. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Stuart Dance
"KEMP exists in an area of high density housing, choking traffic and a high number of low income families without gardens, so therefore it's insane to destroy this amazing place. Where else can you play football and tennis, let your kids run around in their own playpark and enjoy the beautiful greenery as the boats go past the Thames? It will be an immense shame if this special place goes and this part of London will suffer greatly because of it. It might be something that is hard to quantify but the mental and physical health of the inhabitants of this area WILL deteriorate is the wrong decision is made. These plans need to be reconsidered. London is becoming a more expensive and harsher environment to live in - so please don't deprive myself and the other local residents of a beautiful area that provides us a with a bit of sanity in such an overcrowded and busy place. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maureen Holmes-Higgin
"As a leaseholder resident of Putney Wharf Tower I request that this property is included in the " zone of influence" to ensure against untoward damages or disturbance. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Steve O'Hara
"I am strongly opposed to the Chambers Wharf development since my property will be subject to 3 years of 24/7 noise and pollution , and the river view will be badly distorted. I believe a more suitable site, already owned by Thames Water, in Bow would have little impact on the residential areas so it seems perverse to select a site where numerous residential buildings, schools and businesses will be effected so detrimentally. Additionally I am involved in the tourism business, bringing foreign tourists into the UK, but primarily to London. Given the proximity of the Chambers Wharf site to some landmark tourist sights I fear that such a project would have a negative effect on the tourist experience for visitors to our city, which could lead to a drop in visitor numbers - which is something the economy of London can ill-afford. Again, by using the site in Bow, the tourism industry would avoid such problems."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ms C Bamping
"I agree with the development of the Thames Tunnel as it will clean up the river Thames. This development is long over-due. On a daily basis I can see evidence of the pollution caused by the releasing of sewage into the river. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Walters
"I feel that it will make our already congested road worse. I'm worried for my children and theirs friends walking to school. Pollution , noise, vibration. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Chalkley
"I am a local resident that may be affected by these works. I am registering as an interested party to be kept informed. I may submit comments at a later stage. Barn Elms Site Loss of Amenity: Currently, there is access from Horne Way onto Putney Common which allows access to the Beverly Brooke walkway which leads onto the Thames Tow Path. It is not clear from the current plans as to whether there will be a loss of amenity and access through to the Thames tow path. Noise: There will be one of the main construction sites directly opposite the Horne Way Flats. Noise from the construction may significantly decrease the quality of life in the area. I am concerned the construction should be heavily restricted outside normal working hours. Or, if extended hours of operation are permitted, there should be a planning condition with respect to noise levels or requirements as regards noise abatement to ensure minimisation of the nuisance to local residents. The area is already subject to noise from planes on the approach to Heathrow. A further source of noise would not be welcome especially as it is likely to be continuous. Pollution: The significant levels of construction traffic may not only add to significant levels of traffic in the area and add further pollution in the form of diesel exhaust and dust. As I stated on the phone, I have just moved into the area. I am not necessarily objecting to the project as I recognise that it is required however I do wish to be included in the planning process so that I can be kept fully informed and make appropriate representations should they be required. Putney Embankment Site: Traffic: There is a potential for significantly increased traffic as result of the works on the Putney Embankment. I note in one of the documents there is an option for contractors to move materials by barge rather than by road. I must express a strong preference for materials to be moved by barge as there is already significant traffic congestion in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Riverside West Residents Association (Riverside West Residents Association)
"I own a 999 year lease at Riverside West and am concerned that the Thames Sewer Tunnel may cause subsidence. I am also the Chairman of Riverside West Residents Association. We are directly opposite the Carnwath Road proposal, which will create so much disturbance in the area which may lead to further subsidence for our 531 apartments, which I represent. The freehold is owned by St George South London and the Head Lease is owned by a company called Freehold Income Trust (Agents are Freehold Managers)."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Riverside West Residents' Association (Riverside West Residents' Association)
"Riverside West is a 500+ apartment development on the south side of the River Thames close by Wandsworth Bridge. I am a leaseholder of one of the apartments and the elected Secretary of the formally recognised residents' association. Several sites close by Riverside West were investigated as part of the Thames Tideway Tunnel application and the tunnel itself will run under the river by the development. I am therefore concerned as a leaseholder and on behalf of the other residents' of Riverside west about the effects of tunnelling - vibration and subsidence etc. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robbie Bryan
"i am interested this tide way tunnel is going to improve the inviroment and wildlife along the Thames"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robin Millward
"I have lived at my current address since 1996 and King Edward VII Memorial Park is a key feature of my neighbourhood, being the largest freely accessible green space between the Isle of Dogs and Tower Bridge. I object to the use of greenfield land when a brownfield site is available at Heckford Street, which would confine works relating to the project to that part of the park nearest the Highway. Thames Water has admitted that the figures given on traffic movements for these two options are wrong. The merits of these two options have therefore not been considered on a like for like basis and have been biased towards the "easy option" of using the park's foreshore. This is a poor and densely populated borough, where food banks are still needed. The continued use of the park foreshore is essential to the health and welfare of the local population across all age groups and I believe the Heckford Street option should be considered further, particularly in light of the erroneous information provided regarding traffic movements."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roderic Mac Clancy
"I own my houseboat and have rented my mooring space from Nine Elms Pier Ltd on a rolling contract for over twelve years, As one of the vertical spoil removal shafts is within 25 feet of my houseboat I have been told that I will have to be relocated for approximately seven years but I am given no assurances or details of where/when/how and at whose cost my houseboat will be relocated. In the meantime any potential sale of my home is blighted. As I am over 60 and have recently been diagnosed with cancer I would normally put my boat up for sale at some point in the near future. This I am loathe to do under the current circumstances."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Skinner
"I do not believe the Thames Tunnel is the correct answer to the problem, and it has no consideration of the effect on peoples lives. I own a property where my bedroom window is about 50 meters from Chambers Wharf, which is currently a very central but quiet location. This site is being put forward to be used 24 x 7 for many years, which will result in intolerable noise and make my home uninhabitable. Also in the near vicinity of the site, there are 3 schools as well as many other residential properties."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Birrell
"I live near and work in London. the Thames is the life thread of the City, it's health should be a concern to us all. I also fish and float on occasions on the upper Tideway which has been devestated on numerous occasions by the inability of the sewage infrastructure to cope with the size of the modern city. Points I believe that you should consider: ? Anglers from across our region love to fish the tidal stretches of Thames and further downstream the estuary is an important saltwater fishery. We have seen regular fish kills over recent years, often following summer storms during periods of low flow. ? London’s Victorian sewers, built for two million people, can no longer cope. The city’s population is now eight million and rising. In a typical year up to 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage discharges into the River Thames after as little as 2mm of rainfall. This shameful and unnecessary scenario has created unacceptable environmental and public health hazards. The Thames and Lee Tunnels and associated improvements will tackle nearly all this pollution. ? The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; British taxpayers would face the prospect of hefty fines, if the tunnel is not built. ? It can take up to three months for sewage that has entered the uppermost reaches of the Thames Tideway to reach the sea. The CSOs discharge not just urine and faecal matter into the river, but also nearly 10,000 tonnes of litter every year including toilet paper, wipes, sanitary towels, condoms, cotton buds and other ‘flushable’ items. The hidden dangers include harmful pathogens, viruses and bacteria, such as E coli, hepatitis A and faecal streptococci. ? London’s sewerage system, founded over 150 years ago, has served the capital well, but urgently needs more capacity to meet the needs of modern-day London. Although the River Thames is capable of supporting greater wildlife diversity and has won recent awards for its improved condition these were contingent on the Tunnel going ahead. Without it the river will remain an environmental and public health hazard at times of CSO discharge. ? Currently sewerage discharges occur more than once a week on average and in wetter years, like the one we’ve just experienced, the discharges can increase threefold. There are 30 rowing, canoeing and sailing clubs that regularly make use of the tidal Thames. ? Literally thousands of people use the Thames foreshore every day. Hundreds of thousands of tourists cruise the river every year. A cleaner, healthy River Thames is essential, not just for anglers, but for the prosperity and global reputation of London and the country as a whole. The Thames Tunnel will ensure that the excellent progress made to clean up the river will not be reversed. I hope that you will take my views into account and support the Thames Tunnel Stuart Birrell"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Ahad
"I have extreme concerns about settlement issues being created to my property by this project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susanne Preece
"I live in   Road, i.e. within close proximity of the planned super sewer site, together with my husband and our 4 year old son. My son will be attending   school starting September. I oppose to the super sewer as it will severely increase the noise, the air pollution and traffic. My son will be in close proximity of the construction site of the super sewer all day long and I am worried on the impact that this will have on him. In addition traffic in our area is already horrendous, adding the construction traffic to this will make travelling on the roads in Parson's Green a nightmare. I am also worried about the impact of the built on house prices. Lastly I am not sure the super sewer will actually eliminate the problem it is being built for in the first place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Timothy Dearden
"I live in and own a waterfront property directly impacted by the Thames Water tunnelling project. Any damage caused by erroneous work, land slippage/settlement or other defects will result in direct financial loss to my self and my wife. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vanessa Rhode
"I have an apartment at   Putney Wharf Tower i am a stong objector to ths scheme on the most picturesque stretch of the river Thames"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthea Savage
"The requirement can be handled by a less invasive plan or more acceptable method of construction. Drainage over a large area would achieve the same result at lower cost without the huge inconvenience to the local population and schooling."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Ian Godfrey Charles South
"As a resident of Capital Wharf which is directly opposite the Chambers Wharf site I am concerned that little or no thought has been given by Thames Water as to the effects of 24 Hour working for residents on both sides of the river. They appear to have decided that Chambers Wharf will be the tunnel entrance site come what may and we have still not heard the arguments for and against the other sites which were being considered, some of which affect far fewer residents. While I accept that a an additional sewer is probably necessary, I believe Thames Water need to engage with those who are likely to affected and to explain in some detail as to the need for 24 hour working. I am sure that the directors of Thames Water would be quick to complain if the proposed site was adjacent to their own property!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Ruben
"The alternatives to a tunnel have not been properly considered. I do not believe the tunnel represents good value for money or consultation has been carried out fairly. When I attended my local consultation meeting there did not appear to be any consultation at all - the Thames Water consultants did not show any interest in hearing local residents views (no one appeared to take notes for example). Instead they kept trying to reinforce why their solution was the best choice. It was a completely one-sided exercise. The proposed development at Chambers Wharf will blight the local area. This will particularly affect the local schools, which are very close to the proposed site. It is not possible to prevent building dust from entering the schools. The roads are residential, very narrow and not suitable for lorry traffic. The noise caused by the lorries going past the schools will be very disruptive. Unaccompanied children regularly go to and from Riverside Primary School along the same narrow, residential streets, as the heavy lorries will need to go. Anyone can see this is highly dangerous. Access to the Chambers Wharf site is very poor. Jamaica Road is already one of the most congested and polluted roads in the country. The traffic moves very slowly for most of the day. Additional lorries will only make this worse and add to the traffic noise and pollution. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2296215/Slowest-rush-hour-roads-revealed-The-infuriating-routes-work-drivers-crawl-just-0-08mph.html I am seriously concerned about the air pollution this will cause, from the increased traffic, the building works themselves, and also the air vents from the tunnel itself. I have severe asthma and my wife has a health condition that affects her breathing. Air quality is already poor in this area and this development will only make it significantly worse. Thames Water have stated that there is a "potential for dust nuisance effects" but I don't believe they understand how even the smallest change in air quality can affect people like ourselves with breathing difficulties. It will not be tenable for people with health issues to live in the area for the seven years the development will take. The site at Chambers Wharf is too small. The proof of this is the fact that they need to build a 50m river infill! This infill will be clearly visible from Tower Bridge, completely ruining the view of a major tourist attraction and part of a world heritage site. As Southwark has no sewage overflow problem, it makes no sense to bring sewage from Greenwich to Southwark. Greenwich itself is on the Thames, so I don't understand why the Greenwich Connection Tunnel has to be built under residential property and brought into Southwark when it could be built under the Thames from Greenwich to Bekesbourne Street, cutting the tunnel length considerably. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Ashfern House Ltd
"We are registering as an interested party in order retain full rights to get information about settlement risks, receive compensation in the event of any mishap. We want to ensure that we are protected in the unlikely event of tunnelling work disturbing our river wall. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Ashfern House Ltd
"We are registering as an interested party in order to retain our full rights to get information about settlement risks, receive compensation in the event of a mishap. We want to ensure that we are protected in the unlikely event of tunnelling work disturbing our river wall."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashfern House Ltd
"We are registering as an interested party in order to retain our full rights to get information about settlement risks, receive compensation in the event of a mishap. We would like to ensure that we are protected in the unlikely event of tunnelling work disturbing oyr river wall. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Ashfern House Ltd
"We are registering as an interested party in order to retain our full rights to get information about settlement risks, receive compensation in the event of a mishap. We want to ensure that we are protected in the unlikely event of tunnelling work disturbing our river wall."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashfern House Ltd
"We are registering as an interested party in order to to retain our full rights to get information about settlement risks, receive compensation in the event of a mishap. We would like to ensure that we are protected in the unlikely event of tunnelling work disturbing our river wall."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashfern House Ltd
"We are registering as an interested party in order to retain our full rights to get information about settlement risks, receive compensation in the event of a mishap. We would like to ensure that we are protected in the unlikely event of tunnelling work disturbing our river wall. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ben Cooper-Melchiors
"Dear sirs, Thames Water has not taken an effective course of engaging or listening to the local community, and the destruction of valuable greenland for a profitable Super Sewer while an alternative brownland Heckford site for construction is available seems wasteful, self-centered and neglectful of the civic and environmental impact of the project's choice of location. My husband and I use King Edward Memorial Park daily to walk our dog and enjoy one of the few peaceful locations in the city. It adds immensely to our healthy lifestyle, and every time I go running I see at least 50 runners, 10 dog walkers and 25 cyclists that hour. The alternative is running along the loud, smoggy and more dangerous Highway. Why permanently mar this highly used park and beautiful green space, when a more logistically and cost effective industrial location can be used? Please consider the interests of the local community over the profitable benefit of a single corporation when reviewing the proposed location for this project. Thames Water wrote to all Londoners recently explaining how and why they will be paying higher bills over time for this project. Please don't make locals pay twice. Kind regards Ben "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Camilla Durgan
"I own Flat   ,   Brewhouse Lane which is part of the Putney Wharf Development. On 16th May the Putney Wharf Association attended a meeting organised by Justine Greening and a presentation given by the Thames Tideway Tunnel representatives. This outlined the risk of settlement and how they are proposing to work with people with interests in sites that may be affected, known as the Zone of Influence. Despite there being history of settlement of the south river wall between Putney road and rail bridges, the Putney Wharf Estate is not currently included in the Zone of Influence, while the adjacent St Mary’s church is. I am registering as an interested party with my “representation” being a request that the Putney Wharf Estate be included in the Zone of Influence. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Celia Lorimer
"I feel that there has not been enough examination of alternative ideas to make forcing through this plan in a residential area with a lot of schools nearby."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Patel
"Hi, I spoke to someone the other week who directed me to parts of the DVD, thank you. My concerns are: - the height of the ventilation columns and kiosks and their width. I have recently bought the property because of its fantastic views and feel that these views will be distorted and may result in the price of the property decreasing. - the proposed length of time it will take to complete the works by my property seems extremely long. I will be renting the flat out at that point most likely and will need to ensure that my tenants are happy and don't ask for compensation. -Dust to the property from works. Am I going to have to have windows closed all the time? Will external windows be regularly cleaned? - possibility of needing to temporarily move house... do you think this is something that will happen to me? If so, how is that process even going to work? - depreciation in value of the property? I am concerned that this work will lead to this. - changes from the plans... could height and width of columns. etc. be changed last minute? - Do you have computer generated images of what it is going to look like from the point of view of my flat in St. George Wharf which faces the river towards the London Eye? If I were able to see what it will look like, that would be very helpful. My main issues are the time scale seems too long, the disruption and inconvenience, height of columns/kiosks obstructing my view and the worry of a depreciation in property price. Thank you for taking the time to read my views and I do hope that they are considered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Scull
"I am a local resident and supporter of KEMP. I use King Edward memorial several times a week and understand its importance both as an amenity in a Borough which has little green space and as a link in the Thames riverside path. I oppose Thames Water's current proposal on the grounds that it will have a disproportionate impact on amenity, environment and biodiversity, and that there is a viable brownfield alternative. King Edward VII Memorial park is historically important as a local municipal monument and recreational amenity. It forms part of the Wapping Wall Conservation Area, lies within an Area of Archaeological Importance, and contributes to LBTH’s Biodiversity Action Plan. It is a priceless community asset in a Borough which is not generously-endowed with open green space, and has a wider importance as a link in the Thames-side footpath and as a significant element contributing to the character of the historic river front between the Tower of London World Heritage Site and the Isle of Dogs. To press ahead with this scheme, when there are viable Brownfield alternatives, would appear to contravene principles of sound planning and conservation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Grindall
"1. The site being considered is highly inappropriate for the works under consideration. 2. Great disturbance will be caused to the local communities by the planned works and transportation of soil excavated. 3. Better options for the work to be carried out from other locations exist and should be used. 4. Causing a blight on the community and the ability for people to sell or rent their homes where the blight could be avoided fails to value the way this community has existed and developed as an important transformation of the area. 5.Southwark council has recognised this area as one deserving help and improvement and has invested accordingly. All that investment could be wasted if these works proceed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana Allan
"I am the long leaseholder of flat   Trafalgar Court, Glamis Road, London E1W 3TF and have a share in the freehold. My concerns are 1. It is proposed that the tunnel will pass under the jetty and the end of Trafalgar Court and thus very close to block 4 where my flat is situated. My concern is that the tunnelling will affect the stability of the building, interfere with its foundations and safety and the process will cause vibration and possibly noise that will interfere with the quiet enjoyment of my property. The building has no ground floor apart from at the entrance lobby and is largely supported by columns at ground floor level which provides parking underneath the building. It appears to me that this construction will be particularly vulnerable to destabilisation by tunnelling and that the proposed depth of the tunnel may not be sufficient to avoid this danger. 2. It is proposed that one of the main access sites for building the tunnel will be in King Edward VII Memorial Park which is immediately adjacent to Trafalgar Court. I would wish to associate myself with all other representations that have been made about the serious affects on the community of using the park in this way and in particular would wish to emphasise that it is the only riverside park between Tower Hill and the Isle of Dogs and the only green space available in this portion of the Borough. Local schools use it for their sports days, religious festivals take place there and it is overall the focal point of the lives of four communities. I would also like to support Tower Hamlets' suggestion that access should be from the brown field site identified by them. In addition I strongly oppose the use of the park in this way because of the seriously adverse sffect it will have on the use of my flat. The window of the main bedroom faces the park and will be within about 100 metres of the access road proposed. This means that the flat will be seriously affected by noise,vibration, dust and pollution caused by the excessive movements of large vehicles accessing the site and by the works carried out there. There will also be considerable danger from the numerous vehicle movements proposed to the children and others who use Glamis Road to access the park and to the growing numbers of cyclists in the road, numbers of whom live in Trafalgar Court. In view of the serious interference both with the enjoyment of my property and with local amenities and the serious dangers the use of the park as propsed would create I strongly oppose its use as an access point to the tunnel and submit that the brown field site identified by the Local Council should be used in its place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr John Snelson
"Thames Water is proposing major upheavals across London with significant costs borne by its customers thereafter without considering alternatives with any rigour, if at all. There are significant professional groups and experts nationally and internationally who dispute strongly Thames Water's single-minded stance as expensive, inappropriately intrusive and not suited for its purpose. (I have attending several public meetings, questioned Thames Water representatives and read the literature produced by Thames Water and others.) The scale of the proposals for the Carnworth Road site is entirely inappropriate for such a dense residential area. I live in this area and see daily how busy, densely occupied and residential the area is. The proposal for a huge construction in a tiny site amid a large area of housing will directly and severely affect the lives of thousands of local residents through: prolonged disturbance through noise and vibration, pollution and its associated health problems during construction and after completion, and resulting damage to community and local business. This is a residential area of homes and schools – the nearest are within metres of the proposed shaft access, pretty much literally on the doorstep. A more intrusive and destructive location it is impossible to imagine. Even if the long term benefits of the whole scheme were agreed, rather than so severely disputed, this would remain an entirely unsuitable site for prolonged and major construction works. The Carnworth Road site is also part of the ongoing Thameside redevelopment, bringing jobs and homes to the area and improving this long-established residential area. The proposal will not only block this positive development for the community but also damage it permanently thereafter through the siting of the remaining Thames Sewer infrastructure. The Carnworth Road site by one of the busiest road interchanges/routes into central London that already has severe problems, with regular major jams. I observe these on a weekly basis. The proposed additional heavy-lorry road traffic will be directed through the busiest roads in London, through residential areas and into some of the worst road jam points in London (Fulham/Earl’s Court/King’s Road). This will have effects on children's road safety locally (already an issue), traffic pollution (already an issue), road damage, public transport (buses - already frequently stuck in traffic) and significantly on access to central London through road routes from the West and South West. Such effects will persist through years of construction , with an impact on homes and businesses across the whole of the Hammersmith/Fulham/Chelsea/Westminster area from traffic issues alone. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Kandinsky
"No Sewer at Chambers Wharf. I can't live with this noise, the dust, the pollution, the destruction of community or the financial loss on my property. I live yards from the proposed tunnel. Please don't let them do this to me. I am desperate and it has given me high blood pressure and cost me one long term relationship. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gloria David
"The reason I am registered, is to be able to put my views against the building of the Thames tunnel. This tunnel is afecting lots of lives, above inconvenienced and a misery to people in the area. Thames water eithe rif you agree or desagree are taking our money without our saying. Alos I really do not understand why the Governement can allow the construction when the EU supreme court just found the Uk in particular London in breach of EU air quality standards and they will impose fines."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Moore
"We own/live in a property in close proximity to Chambers Wharf and are concerned that the proposed works that are the subject of the application will cause major disruption to us and the neighbourhood if the application goes ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jean Houlder
" My house adjoins Wandsworth Bridge Road. Any heavy industrial traffic would shake the building horrendously. These houses were built around 1900 in "horse & buggy" days and suffer quite a lot already from traffic. This is a pleasant, residential area, not an industrial site. Let's keep it that way. What would this disruption DO for Fulham? Not much, if anything. I have friends who live, and also some who work, in the Carnwath Road area. It will do nothing for them. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Kim
"The Thames River Tunnel is not the solution for a cleaner Thames. The cost benefit analysis of the project raises serious questions, which need to be fully answered. Research has shown that there may be better, greener, more immediately effective and less costly potential solutions, which must be explored before approving the behemoth Tunnel proposal. In addition to the upcoming increased utility bills all Londoners will bear for the Tunnel project, I am especially concerned as a Fulham resident. With the proximity to the proposed main drive site at Carnwath Road, I will suffer on a daily (and nightly) basis for seven years. Having such a major construction site in a family oriented residential area with multiple schools and parks makes no sense. The traffic upheaval, safety issues with the number and proximity of large commercial vehicles, noise, and pollution will devastate living conditions for all in this central London residential area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John LeSurf
"Being a keen angler and appointed fishery officer ,it concerns me that the amount of raw sewerage that is allowed to be discharged into the River Thames. The building of this tunnel is vital, not just for this generation but for future generations.With the rate of growth London has gone through during our residence of 60 years living here,the tunnel was needed many years ago.If you take Wapping as a example it was the heart of docklands with perhaps one warehouse of 100.000 square feet with perhaps one or two toilets.These have now been converted to apartments of perhaps 100 units.if you were to times this by 100 you will see the scale of the problem this extra sewerage has brought. Even Joseph Bazalgette could not foresee the capacity needed 150 years later when he first constructed Londons present sewerage system. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John-Paul Parker
"I who live in Luna House where my flat overlooks the site and is 1-2m away from the site object to the plans of TW for Chambers Wharf. Firstly – the site is 1-2m away from my bedroom window. TW have made assurances that noise pollution can be mitigated but when I read their reports they actually stated that the sound in the first few years would be above the accepted threshold for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Obviously being sleep deprived for that long a period of time would have all forms of medical impacts on oneself both physiologically and psychologically. Any medical professional would attest to this. As I suffer from Degenerative Disc Disease, which is made worse through periods of stress and obviously sleep deprivation would qualify, I am one who would suffer not just from extreme fatigue but also extreme pain which would make living within such proximity to a 24/7 site where the works will be above the acceptable threshold for such a prolonged period of time. TW has further stated they would offer triple glazing to mitigate sound. This would however, mean that I cannot enjoy my property as it means my windows would have to stay shut for 3 years+ which is a pathetic solution and breaches case law. Secondly, I approached a separate tunneling firm to get their opinion on the work to see whether Southwark was really a necessary site as TW claimed at City Hall. They said the tunnel could not be built without a site in Southwark and Save Your Riverside gave several options which TW said were not possible. I approached the tunneling firm and commissioned them as I wanted to know if SYRs proposals were viable or whether there was no choice but to drive from Chambers Wharf. Very quickly it became apparent that TW was being dishonest. Not only were there several viable alternatives, but a lot of work was being duplicated and also a lot of work was gold plating. As I work in capital markets, the reason is fairly obvious. The more work that is done the more it benefits TW’s bottom line. Given the government asked TW to come up with proposals they knew that they would not be in competition. This rarely bodes well for any government or taxpayer. In addition the engineers felt that the timeline was overly optimistic and that the noise, light and other pollution will last for longer than TW is claiming. The engineering firm has made many alternatives that are either the same cost or lower and reduced the number of sites required which is one of the most important factors when devising a solution. It would seem TW has approached it from a cost is no issue point of view which is poor engineering practice. I can disclose the report whenever necessary. I am also alarmed that a solution were not offered to multiple competitors to keep privately owned water companies honest. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Josephine Elsie Winstanley
"General Statement The objectors do not oppose the construction of the tunnel in principle. The objectors support the overall objective of reducing the discharge of raw sewage into the River Thames. However, it is the view of the objectors that the scheme should not proceed in its present form. Objection-The Line of the Tunnel The line of the tunnel should be moved a few metres to the east to minimise the effect on private property rights caused by the necessary compulsory purchase of land. The plans accompanying the application indicate that: (i) The order limit and tunnel limit of deviation will pass under the rear wall of   Abinger Road ('the property') and (ii) The tunnel will be substantially (about 75%) constructed under the rear garden of the property To build the tunnel on this line Thames Water seek an order authorising it to compulsorily purchase 111 square metres of the subsoil under the property. The plan accompanying the application shows that the rear garden of the property ('the   garden') is faced by the rear garden of a house in Emlyn Road ('the ER garden'). The   garden is about 14 metres long from the rear wall of the house to the rear fence of the   garden. The ER garden is visually estimated to be about 30 metres long. Between the rear boundaries of the   garden and the ER garden is a strip of land which is about 17.5 metres wide. It is believed that the strip of land is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Historically the strip of land was part of a single track railway. For many years the strip of land has been used as allotments ('the allotments') which are today managed by Emlyn Leisure Gardens Association. The tunnel which has an internal diameter of 6.5 metres could be constructed entirely under the 17.5 metres width of the allotments. The advantages of constructing the tunnel under the allotments would be: (i) Thames Water would not need to compulsorily purchase any of the subsoil under the property (ii) The risk of ground settlement to the property would be reduced because the line of the tunnel would be further from the built part of the property (iii) The only buildings on the allotments are sheds without foundations so there is no risk of damage to any building on the allotments from ground settlement (iv) So far as the objectors are aware there have been no objections from those interested in the allotments to the construction of the tunnel under the allotments. Consultation has proceeded so far on the assumption that the tunnel would be constructed under the allotments. Objectors' Proposal The application should not be approved unless Thames Water alter the line of the tunnel so that it runs entirely under the allotments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mahbub Alam
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. It will destroy the most needed family oriental park where people from all works of life and backgrounds come together to enjoy and relax in this park. Mahbub Alam"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Kovats
"My son attends   Primary and I am aware of the amazing work carried out by the school to achieve such good results for children from a deprived area. I am concerned at the disruption the proposed work will have on the health and education of my son and other children."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Johns
"I firmly support the SaveKEMP Community Campaign and believe the social impact of the Thames Water proposal to be disproportionate to the economic benefits gained from their project. The project is going to take at least 3-4 years, which is a long time to have to cope with additional noise, dust and light pollution of construction. I spend a proportion of my time working from home which means my productivity is likely to be negatively impacted by construction. I am also looking to lease or sell the property in about 3 years time, I am likely to suffer a loss of income or capital should the works go ahead. I am also concerned that Thames Water have not conducted an adequate socio-economic impact assessment of the proposed project, and would like to see more communications regarding how the proposed economic benefits (probably accruing to Thames Water) outweigh the negative social impacts. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Pamela Forrester on behalf of Miss Jennifer Forrester
"No   Putney Wharf should be included in the zone of influence"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr & Mrs Allibhai
"We are registering as an interested party in order to retain our full rights to get information about settlement risks, receive compensation in the event of a mishap. we would also like to ensure that we are protected in the unlikely event of tunnelling work disturbing our river wall."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mr Brian Wilcockson
"The Thames Tideway Tunnel 1. I live 25 miles from London and do not pay Thames Water so I do not propose to pay any money for the above works. 2. Thames Water should firstly remove surface water from the outfall at the Thames. This is Thames Waters fault mixing the surface water and sewage. 3 Thames Water is a foreign owned company and makes massive amounts of profit which they could use to pay for the above works. They could then add the costs to customers in London over the lifetime of the tunnel. 4. Thames Water has a monopoly for the water supply in London, this is why they are somewhat controlled by the Ofwat regulator. I refuse to accept the Ofwat ruling as I am not a Thames Water customer. 5. I am not sure but I believe my sewage is sent to the Slough Sewerage Works, which produces clean water good enough to drink without any sewerage going into the Thames. As I am not polluting the Thames why should I pay the surcharge? 6. The £80.00 a year is a PPI, banking insurance scam, in the making as I have already paid my water company for sewerage removal. 7. The dumping of untreated sewage into the sea is an illegal act and would affect Ramsgate and Margate. I hope the appropriate legal action by Ofwat has taken place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mrs Federika Goulden
"I disagree with the application as it has been shown in public - television newspapers etc - that there is a better and cheaper way of cleaning the Thames. Please be alerted to the American experience of a similar problem there and the way the American experts handled it. I live very near the Thames and walk there most days. The Thames is tidal and there is no rubbish - unless of course the public through it into the river. In the past I have talked to fishermen there, where they catch salmon amoung other fish, they take the fish home and eat it - they say it is delicious!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Gardner
"The Thames path and king Edward memorial park which you are proposing to demolish is a part of the local community. I am a keen runner and chose to live in Limehouse due to its proximity to work, community and the ability to run along the river. This stretch of path is always a hive of activity with runners, walkers, cyclist and people playing, exercising and chilling in the park. There are always people playing football and tennis no matter what time of day. The government and council are always talking about a greener London with the emphasis on greener modes of transport. Go one sunny evening or weekend and look at the number of people using none environmental damaging modes of transport. Look at the people walking to the pub, or the kids playing in the park. To demolish this would be a travesty."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Mountford
"I object to the plans of Thames Water for Chambers Wharf because they are not necessary and at the same time will ruin a beautiful peaceful riverside neighbourhood for many years to come. The noise and disruption will blight schools and many homes, the view of Tower Bridge will be obstructed and the Thames Path walk will be ruined. The area will lose many tourists and the revenue and liveliness they bring. Some residents would have to be moved out of their homes for a long time. Despite Thames Water’s claims, there is no technical necessity for the plans. Thames Water’s brief is to sort out sewage overflow into the river but there is no overflow in Southwark. I believe Thames Water’s motive for the plans is financial. There are other technical solutions to all the problems Thames Water cites as justifying the plans. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Orla Tomany McKeon
"Disagree with proposal Main reasons: Intense traffic congestion in this family residential area ie construction lorries pose significant danger to pedestrians and cyclists. 3 major development sites contributing to this danger ie Wandsworth bridge road/Townmead Rd/Sulivan Rd Additional Excessive noise pollution to residents due to construction traffic &machinery."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Brocklehurst
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. The Memorial Park is one of only a few green areas nearby, and will be damaged by the construction of towers, as well as disrupted by the long constructiion works. an alternative is available, and should be used."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Wickman
"A major construction site in South Fulham, which will in progress for many years, will have a significant effect on the quality of life of the local population. The noise, pollution and possible sleep deprivation will have negative health effects while traffic congestion could cause significant inconvenience. In addition, there are many other negative factors that need to be taken into account including: dangers to pedestrians and children; vibration; damage to properties; inability to sell houses and move etc etc. For these reasons I am totally against this project proceeding in South Fulham."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Profe Sandra File
"As both my husband and I are retired we spend a considerable part of every day at home. We would therefore have to endure the noise literally 24hours a day. This would be more than a minor irritation, there is a large body of scientific evidence on the health impacts of noise exposure. There is also extensive evidence of the deleterious effects on health of sleep distrurbance. The work will continue for many months and it is impractical for residents to go away for the duration of the noise disturbance. All residents would suffer, bu perhaps those of school age would be most severely impacted as their school work would be impaired. The noise during the day would make it hard for them to concentrate and disrupted sleep would further impair performance. There are alternatives to one large super sewer that seem better from the environmental and cost point of view and the construction would put a much less severe load on residents. Chambers Wharf is in a densely populated area of London, with large areas of social housing and many vulnerable residents. i urge you to consider the health of Londoners, which should not be wantonly sacrificed for the profits of Thames Water."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Raj Bhatia
"The basic thrust of Thames Water’s (TW’s) consultation has been to highlight the impact of their proposals to those affected on a site by site basis. The consultees across London as a whole, therefore, cannot have evaluated the size, complexity and nature of the whole ‘iceberg’ from only the ‘tip’ they could see. The Development Consent Application (DCA) gives the first opportunity to evaluate the DCA and the impact of the entire scheme on the Capital’s physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic infrastructure. These are key issues which will influence me in deciding which aspects of the DCA should be supported or not. Within the time made available it has not been possible to appraise the authenticity and scope of the 50,000 page DCA in order to meaningfully evaluate the proposal or to agree or disagree with any of its aspects. The requirement that the ‘Interested Parties’ do so as part of the Registration subverts the very consultation process. I am familiar with the output of the Thames Tideway Strategic Study and Defra’s ‘in principle’ recommendation to proceed with a scheme on which TW’s current proposals and the DCA are based. TW will confirm that as the former Chairman of the Stamford Brook Residents Association I have liaised extensively with them and made constructive contribution during the development of the project. I have also liaised with the London Councils and Hammersmith & Fulham Council – my Borough Council - on strategic issues concerning TW’s schemes at various stages. In February 2009 I gave a presentation of the then TW’s scheme to representatives from TW, the Environment Agency, and the London Forum of Civic and Amenity Societies. In August 2011, I gave evidence to Thames Tunnel Commission against TW’s proposals. I have engaged the London Mayor, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defra, and the `Chancellor of the Exchequer in a constructive dialogue highlighting the inappropriateness of TW’s scheme in its objectives to meet the requirements of EU’s Directive 91/271/EEC on Urban Waste Water Treatment. I intend to make meaningful comments on the DCA. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Winckworth Sherwood (Winckworth Sherwood) on behalf of Reverend Ailsa Newby
"This relevant representation is made on behalf of the Reverend Ailsa Newby, incumbent of St Mary’s, Putney. The church is of historic and architectural significance – it was where the Putney debates were held in 1647 and includes a medieval tower, believed to be the oldest structure in Wandsworth. It is the parish church for around 300 adults and 300 children people. St Mary’s is open 7 days a week and in addition to being a place of worship, it serves as a community centre with a café. A nursery for about 70 children also occupies the premises. St Mary’s is directly affected by Thames Water’s proposal to use the Thames foreshore to the west of Putney Bridge for the construction of the Thames Tideway sewer. Works under Putney Bridge might affect St Mary’s occupation of the bridge vaults. If consent is granted for works to be carried out in the vicinity of St Mary’s, the following matters must be addressed to ensure that the church and the life of the church are properly protected: 1. Settlement / Subsidence Thames Water’s proposals are likely to involve the driving of cofferdam piles, the excavation of an access shaft, the engagement of heavy construction traffic and tunnel boring which could endanger the church structures. Thames Water must provide a bespoke settlement deed to address monitoring and implementation of protective measures. 2. Use of/access to vaults under Putney Bridge The vaults under Putney Bridge are used by St Mary’s as a meeting place (including for hire) and for storage. It is vital that such use is not compromised either by the execution of the works or during the operation of the tunnel. 3. Access An area of footway and carriageway in the near vicinity of St Mary’s is to be temporarily stopped up for the construction of ventilation columns. 23 square metres of the church’s hardstanding and churchyard is also subject to powers of permanent acquisition. 111 square metres of St Mary’s hardstanding and churchyard are also subject to powers of temporary possession. Taken together, these proposals could compromise access to the church forecourt used by all those who visit the church, including vehicular deliveries to the café. There are particular concerns about access for disabled persons and for those visiting the nursery with buggies. 4. The river wall Water appears now on the church side of the river wall at very high tide, suggesting either that the wall has cracks within its structure or that the joint with the new upper section of river wall to Putney Wharf was not properly sealed. The works could exacerbate an already difficult situation, with the risk of serious flooding. 5. Visual impairment There is concern that the ventilation shaft proposed in the vicinity could impair the view of St. Mary’s. The shaft must be sited to avoid such an outcome. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Wickes
"I live near the proposed works and will be affected by the associated traffic and polution. I will also have to pay substantially more on my water bill to achieve an objective that I believe can be achieved by other cheaper means."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert James Winstanley
"General Statement The objectors do not oppose the construction of the tunnel in principle. The objectors support the overall objective of reducing the discharge of raw sewage into the River Thames. However, it is the view of the objectors that the scheme should not proceed in its present form. Objection-The Line of the Tunnel The line of the tunnel should be moved a few metres to the east to minimise the effect on private property rights caused by the necessary compulsory purchase of land. The plans accompanying the application indicate that: (i) The order limit and tunnel limit of deviation will pass under the rear wall of   Abinger Road ('the property') and (ii) The tunnel will be substantially (about 75%) constructed under the rear garden of the property To build the tunnel on this line Thames Water seek an order authorising it to compulsorily purchase 111 square metres of the subsoil under the property. The plan accompanying the application shows that the rear garden of the property ('the   garden') is faced by the rear garden of a house in Emlyn Road ('the ER garden'). The   garden is about 14 metres long from the rear wall of the house to the rear fence of the   garden. The ER garden is visually estimated to be about 30 metres long. Between the rear boundaries of the   garden and the ER garden is a strip of land which is about 17.5 metres wide. It is believed that the strip of land is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Historically the strip of land was part of a single track railway. For many years the strip of land has been used as allotments ('the allotments') which are today managed by Emlyn Leisure Gardens Association. The tunnel which has an internal diameter of 6.5 metres could be constructed entirely under the 17.5 metres width of the allotments. The advantages of constructing the tunnel under the allotments would be: (i) Thames Water would not need to compulsorily purchase any of the subsoil under the property (ii) The risk of ground settlement to the property would be reduced because the line of the tunnel would be further from the built part of the property (iii) The only buildings on the allotments are sheds without foundations so there is no risk of damage to any building on the allotments from ground settlement (iv) So far as the objectors are aware there have been no objections from those interested in the allotments to the construction of the tunnel under the allotments. Consultation has proceeded so far on the assumption that the tunnel would be constructed under the allotments. Objectors' Proposal The application should not be approved unless Thames Water alter the line of the tunnel so that it runs entirely under the allotments. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre (Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre)
"The Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre is based in Glamis Road and the proposed works at King Edward Memorial Park will have an impact on three aspects of our operation: 1. Community water based activities on the River Thames. We have had discussions with Thames Water to mitigate the increased dangers and access via our slipway which will be 20 metres from the proposed river works boundary. No outcome has yet been achieved to overcome the increased dangers. 2. Mooring trots for sailing and safety craft A number of these moorings will need to be relocated as their current location is inside the area designated as the construction site. We need to discuss alternative locations which meet our operational needs and the costs of works. 3. Entrance via main gates to the Centre Our entrance is adjacent to the site access on Glamis Road. We are concerned about the level of HGV lorries entering the construction site via Glamis Road and the increased risks to young people entering our only entrance alongside the site entrance. In the phase 2 consultation documents (Autumn 2011) it was stated that the maximum number of lorries would be 22 per day. The Transport Assessment Section 21.5.66 states an average of 82 vehicle movements a day. Section 21.5.33 states that there will be a “raised risk of pedestrian accidents”. The Centre is visited at peak times by 750 school pupils per week, all of whom use the main gates, plus further numbers during evenings and weekends. School pupils are also brought to the centre by coach and the arrangements include suspending the coach parking bays and no alternative is suggested. Arrangements need to be considered to ensure that young people are protected from this increased risk. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
South London Church Fund and Southwark Diocesan Board of Finance
"This relevant representation is made on behalf of the South London Church Fund and Southwark Diocesan Board of Finance, which has responsibility for financing St Luke’s Church, Deptford in the London borough of Lewisham. St Luke’s Church, one of two churches in the parish of St Nicholas’ and St Luke’s, is directly affected by Thames Water’s proposals to construct the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The limits of deviation for the tunnel run through subsoil underneath the eastern extremity of the church. This gives rise to grave concerns about settlement and subsidence. St Luke’s Church, which was constructed in 1870-72, is currently incapable of being used because its tower and eastern extremity are unstable. Given their precarious state, it is clearly vital that the tunnel boring underneath the church be closely monitored. Thames Water must provide a bespoke settlement deed to address monitoring and the implementation of protective measures. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
South London Church Fund and Southwark Diocesan Board of Finance
"This relevant representation is made on behalf of the South London Church Fund and Southwark Diocesan Board of Finance which has responsibility for financing St Mary’s, Putney. St Mary’s is of historic and architectural significance – it was where the Putney debates were held in 1647 and includes a medieval tower, believed to be oldest the structure in Wandsworth. It is the parish church for around 300 adults and 300 children people. St Mary’s is open 7 days a week and in addition to being a place of worship, it serves as a community centre with a café. A nursery for about 70 children also occupies the premises. St Mary’s is directly affected by Thames Water’s proposal to use the Thames foreshore to the west of Putney Bridge for the construction of the Thames Tideway sewer. Works under Putney Bridge might affect St Mary’s occupation of the bridge vaults. If consent is granted for works to be carried out in the vicinity of St Mary’s, the following matters must be addressed to ensure that the church and the life of the church are properly protected: 1. Settlement / Subsidence Thames Water’s proposals are likely to involve the driving of cofferdam piles, the excavation of an access shaft, the engagement of heavy construction traffic and tunnel boring which could endanger the church structures. Thames Water must provide a bespoke settlement deed to address monitoring and implementation of protective measures. 2. Use of/access to vaults under Putney Bridge The vaults under Putney Bridge are used by St Mary’s as a meeting place (including for hire) and for storage. It is vital that such use is not compromised either by the execution of the works or during the operation of the tunnel. 3. Access An area of footway and carriageway in the near vicinity of St Mary’s is to be temporarily stopped up for the construction of ventilation columns. 23 square metres of the church’s hardstanding and churchyard is also subject to powers of permanent acquisition. 111 square metres of St Mary’s hardstanding and churchyard are also subject to powers of temporary possession. Taken together, these proposals could compromise access to the church forecourt used by all those who visit the church, including vehicular deliveries to the café. There are particular concerns about access for disabled persons and for those visiting the nursery with buggies. 4. The river wall Water appears now on the church side of the river wall at very high tide, suggesting either that the wall has cracks within its structure or that the joint with the new upper section of river wall to Putney Wharf was not properly sealed. The works could exacerbate an already difficult situation, with the risk of serious flooding. 5. Visual impairment There is concern that the ventilation shaft proposed in the vicinity could impair the view of St. Mary’s. The shaft must be sited to avoid such an outcome. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
St Christopher's Fellowship (St Christopher's Fellowship)
"We wish to request that St Christopher's Fellowship be included in the Zone of Influence."
Non-Statutory Organisations
St Nicholas' Church (St Nicholas' Church)
"This relevant representation is made on behalf of the Reverend Louise Codrington-Marshall, incumbent of St Luke’s, Deptford. St Luke’s Church, one of two churches in the parish of St Nicholas’ and St Luke’s, is directly affected by Thames Water’s proposals to construct the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The limits of deviation for the tunnel run through subsoil underneath the eastern extremity of the church. This gives rise to grave concerns about settlement and subsidence. St Luke’s Church, which was constructed in 1870-72, is currently incapable of being used because its tower and eastern extremity are unstable. Given their precarious state, it is clearly vital that the tunnel boring underneath the church be closely monitored. Thames Water must provide a bespoke settlement deed to address monitoring and the implementation of protective measures. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Savage
"I feel that there are better ways to achieve the required result, either by better less invasive construction or by alternative drainage over a large area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
V A Tesmer
"I have fished the River Thames from the age of six and have seen its demise over the past 40years I am now 60 years old and would welcome this Plan for the Future of the next Generation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Allinson
"Allowing untreated sewerage to enter the Thames is a health hazard to both humans, who use the river and wildlife that lives in or uses the river. and is unacceptable considering the amount of money that the sewerage companies have made over the years this issues should have and could have been rectified years ago. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
All Saints with Holy Trinity Parochial Church Council
"This relevant representation is made on behalf of the parish parochial council of All Saints with Holy Trinity in the London Borough of Wandsworth. The parish has two congregations, one of which meets at All Saints Church. All Saints, a grade 2* listed church, occupies a central position in the original village of Wandsworth. The lower parts of its tower were built in 1630. Its north aisle was built in 1724 and the bulk of the church was rebuilt by William Jupp in 1778-80. All Saints is directly affected by Thames Water’s proposals to construct the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The limits of deviation for the tunnel run through subsoil underneath the eastern extremity of the church and also underneath the churchyard and this gives rise to concerns about settlement and subsidence. It is clearly vital that the tunnel boring underneath the church be closely monitored. Thames Water must provide a bespoke settlement deed to address monitoring and the implementation of protective measures. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amy Lindemann
"I am concerned about the impact of the construction of the tunnel on this area. This relates to living with the noise and vibrations of the construction and the traffic problems with large construction vehicles being constantly present. This is a concern for us since we are planning to have a family in the coming years and having small children while almost living on a huge construction site is problematic. We are also concerned that we have invested much of our hard earned salaries into purchasing a property and paying down a mortgage and the value of our property will dramatically fall leaving us unable to sell the property for even the same amount we purchased it for. This does not reward hard work and responsible planning for our future financial security."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrea Caponi
"I agree with whole the points of Save your Riverside campaign "
Other Statutory Consultees
Cabe at the Design Council (Cabe at the Design Council )
"Cabe at the Design Council is an enterprising charity, offering independent advice on design in the built environment. We are a Statutory Consultee in the planning process for this Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The views set out in this Representation are based on a formal Cabe design review of the Thames Tideway Tunnel Project. The application proposals were presented to the Design Review Panel by Thames Tideway Tunnel’s Lead Architect, Design Manager (Design for Planning) and engineers responsible for the east, central and west sections of the Tunnel. We welcome the overarching design vision promoted, with clear guiding design principles. These will form a vital toolkit for use by contractors and local planning authorities. We support the decision taken to vary the level of detail submitted for each of the sites, in part, to allow for further consultation with communities and boroughs to inform the specifics of the designs. We think the right judgement has been made in determining when a design should be celebratory and when a more discreet approach is called for. The proposals rightly adopt a confident relationship with their surroundings. We welcome the common approach to the expression and lighting of street level features, including ventilation columns, which we are pleased to note are submitted for approval. The strategy could lend the project a strong identity, raise public awareness of the tunnel, and boost civic pride. It could also serve as an exemplar. We recommend extending this approach to cover the kiosks at each of the sites. Better promotion of the project’s benefits will be crucial in bringing communities, local authorities and other stakeholders on board so that they can help shape the detailed designs for the spaces and facilities proposed. Specifically, we advise the following: 1.The applicants should work with the GLA and boroughs to raise awareness of the cultural value of the proposed spaces, which will extend access to, and enjoyment of, the riverside. 2.Works should enhance the setting of heritage assets, including the Thames. They should open up new river views and vistas and preserve existing ones. All heritage assets within tunnel sites should be upgraded. 3.The submission should more enthusiastically promote the use of the Thames for construction and maintenance access. 4.Proposals should address conflicts between vehicles and people. We encourage the development of a common design language for steps, ramps and lifts. 5.Every opportunity should be taken to green the proposed spaces, strengthening local green space networks and wildlife corridors. 6.We welcome the intent to use the buildings and landscape to promote learning and celebrate both Bazalgette’s works and this project. 7.Significant efforts are required to address inconvenience caused to communities. Where possible, visual connections with the river should be maintained during construction. 8.The applicant should fund community projects to engage closely with residents so they can help shape the designs. 9.The project could make London more liveable, through greening the city, supporting walking and cycling, enhancing public amenity, and encouraging more use of the river. 10.The quality suggested can only be fulfilled if the will, budget, and mechanisms are there to secure it. The procurement process should match the right talent to the jobs involved. 11.Full scale mock-ups and samples of streetscape materials and engineering features should help to ensure they can be built to the desired specification and budget, and be fit for purpose. This will give contractors and local authorities a clear understanding of the standard sought by Thames Tideway Tunnel. 12.Sufficient budget should be set aside to ensure the desired landscape is deliverable. We advise contract growing planting. Hard and soft landscape elements should be delivered by contractors with expertise suited to those areas. Site-specific comments: Acton Storm Tanks: We support the principle of locating the works at the northern end of the site and the decision to re-use the adjacent tanks. The design team should satisfy itself and the planning authority that its proposals do not prejudice development of the wider site coming forward in the future. Hammersmith Pumping Station: Close dialogue with the developers should ensure that the Fulham Reach development successfully incorporates the proposed works within the detailed design of the public realm to the benefit of both parties. We advise enhancing the profile of the pumping station in this neighbourhood, celebrating its presence. Barn Elms: We appreciate the challenge to integrate the proposals with this open landscape set back from the Thames. We welcome the modest design for the above ground structure. Planting should require little maintenance, encourage biodiversity and tie in with landscape around the brook. Putney Embankment Foreshore: The proposals show a good appreciation of the unique character of this site. The scheme recognises the site’s role today as a place of gathering, most notably for the boat race. We welcome the confident approach to the design, which should promote the public benefit of this intervention and create a positive association with the project. Dormay Street: While we understand the permanent works will not be publicly accessible, we applaud the applicant for designing the proposals to accommodate change in the future. King George’s Park: This project provides an ideal opportunity to broaden the appeal of this well-loved amenity by giving something back of real value to local communities. The proposals could create a new place within the park that draws from the character of this setting, encourage movement through the area and support the needs of its users. Carnwath Road Riverside: The proposals present a chance to create a new, green riverside space for communities to enjoy. We support the notion of a detached ventilation column; surrounding landscape should lend it a positive backdrop. Reference could be made in the landscape to the main tunnel shaft below ground. Use of the river for site maintenance should be explored. Falconbrook Pumping Station: We support the general intentions for this site. Proposals will need to accommodate plans drawn up by the local authority for York Gardens and respond to future pedestrian movement through the area. The community will need to feel ownership over the space to prevent it from falling victim to vandalism and disuse. Cremorne Wharf Depot: The parameters and design principles supporting this proposed scheme appear to respond to its functional context and the evolving character of this part of the riverside. We support the provision for connecting the Thames Path along the river edge. A palette of simple, robust materials for the building and streetscape appropriate to this riverside context should be secured. Chelsea Embankment Foreshore: The scheme has the potential to resolve the site’s challenges but will require continued dialogue with TfL. Siting the proposals on axis with the Royal Hospital lends strength to the idea of a foreshore structure on the embankment. The termination of this link with a new space should provide a new appreciation of the view to the hospital. Kirtling Street: The proposals appear well considered. We support the intention to improve signage and plant trees along this part of the Thames Path. It is critical that an open dialogue with developers and public bodies continues to takes place. We encourage the coordination of construction activities with other parties, including sharing the use of river transport facilities. Heathwall Pumping Station: The new promontory could create a welcoming riverside space. The design recognises the relationship between the promontory and the pumping station. Proposals should adapt to the needs of Middle Wharf while securing public access to the foreshore. The applicant should ensure the construction impact on surrounding residents is minimised. Albert Embankment Foreshore: We welcome the way in which the proposals terminate the embankment. However, we feel the public should be free to enjoy use of the proposed circular platform beside the bridge. Consideration should be given to upgrading the adjacent pedestrian tunnel beneath the bridge. Victoria Embankment Foreshore: The strong orthogonal plan of this foreshore development is well judged in relation to the linearity of the embankment. The canting of its walls gives a welcome sense of majesty to the structure. The proposals show a good understanding of the relationship between the proposed space and the public realm of Victoria Embankment and Embankment Gardens. Blackfriars Embankment Foreshore: The designs appear to resolve a complex set of site conditions and engineering constraints to produce a public realm proposal that is simple, functional and elegant. The astute handling of the level change from the highway down to the platform underpins an assured design solution. Shad Thames Pumping Station: The idea of a simple, modest extension to the pumping station that is industrial in character and visibly separate from the main building appears sensible given its tight urban context. The choice of construction method and materiality should reflect the challenges of building in an infill site and the relative timescales required for construction. Chambers Wharf: On-going dialogue should take place between the applicants and the housing developer for Chambers Wharf to shape the detailed design of the public realm. The proposals should set a quality benchmark for the housing developer to follow to ensure the creation of an enduring riverside public realm. Earl Pumping Station: The scheme reveals an exciting prospect to create a distinctive building that could become a cherished local landmark. We would ask the applicant to consider separating it from the pumping station boundary wall so that it can be seen as an object in its own right. It is critical that sufficient budget is reserved to deliver the level of quality suggested in this submission. Deptford Church Street: The case for locating the proposals on this site is a compelling one, not least given the potential to improve the setting of the Grade 1 listed St. Paul’s Church and the significant public benefit to be gained through the upgrading and reintegration of an undervalued park space with its wider setting. Greenwich Pumping Station: The level of attention paid to the restoration of the listed Beam Engine House is admirable. However, we are concerned that the setting of this building has not been given the same level of attention. We also think that all listed buildings within the compound should benefit from restoration to protect them for future generations. King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore: For the plans to succeed, they must be supported by a compelling vision for the future of the whole park, delivered with the involvement and support of local people, to demonstrate that the public gain at the end of the process - both at a London-wide and local level - will be worthwhile. Bekesborne Street: We support the proposed scheme. The inclusion of a planted roof for the kiosk is welcomed. Abbey Mills Pumping Station: Given the notable design quality of both Bazalgette’s and Allies and Morrison’s pumping stations in this area, we think the expression of the Thames Tideway Tunnel structures requires the same degree of thought and attention. It will be important to secure permeability around the site at all stages of the works. Beckton Sewage Works: Given the critical role of Beckton Sewage Works as one of London’s major waste water treatment facilities situated at the termination of both the Thames Tideway and Lee tunnels, we think the opportunity could be taken to increase public awareness of this fact. This might be achieved through the inclusion of a visitor centre or tours of the site. Overall, we consider that the illustrative and indicative proposals submitted for each of these sites sufficiently demonstrate that, on completion of this vast project, there will be a legacy of valuable new public spaces providing recreational opportunities for local communities and enriched access and views of the Thames. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carl Mace
"I am completely against the plans for Thames Water to use King Edwards Memorial Park as part of their plans. The use of a greenfield site is totally not justified when there are brownfield sites in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Hickman
"I can think of no greater crime against the environment than the discharge of thousands of tons of raw sewage into what should be one of the jewels of our capital city. We have the technology to prevent this happening so to stand by and do nothing should not be contemplated. If something preventable was harming visible wildlife i.e. birds, dogs, cats etc there would be a public outcry, because the wildlife of our great River Thames is largely invisible the current situation is allowed to continue. This should not be tolerated."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Owen
"According to this application, the relevant section of the proposed Thames Tideway Tunnel has increased in size from a 2.2m-diameter tunnel following the course of the River Thames outlined in the Phase One consultation, to a 6.5m-diameter tunnel passing under land immediately bordering the north side of Lillian Road properties. There is further a proposed 20m limit of deviation permitting the tunnel to be excavated directly under gardens and dwellings on the north side of Lillian Road. In making this change Thames Water Utilities Ltd did not consult with local residents in respect of either the proposed increased scale of the tunnel or the rerouting of the tunnel from the course of the river Thames to pass directly under their properties on the north side of Lillian Road. Instead it simply issued requests for information regarding the freeholds of affected properties, a process that greatly added to concerns. I am extremely concerned that under the proposals in the application, Thames Water Utilities Ltd would be permitted to excavate directly under the gardens and properties of Lillian Road and it has now applied to compulsorily purchase the subsoil below my house and those of neighbours. In view of the fact that the proposed tunnel line in the application does not pass under my property and there is sufficient space between the Lillian Road properties and the building line of St Paul's School for the tunnel to pass without a need to excavate directly under existing buildings, it would seem unnecessary to apply for or grant a Development Consent Order in respect of these properties. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Colne Valley Anglers Consultative (Colne Valley Anglers Consultative)
"Many times each year the Thames and the wildlife which depends upon it suffers an ingress of raw sewage whenever the existing sewerage system is full or nearly so. These raw sewage outflows can have a devastating effect on all aspects of the river and will lead to it failing to reach the required level of health under the Water Framework Directive. With growing populations, increased use of water in homes and more frequent extreme weather conditions, as outlined by the Environment Agency, these deleterious impacts will become more frequent and increasingly devastating. There will be a social and potentially a health cost to all inhabitants local to the river if the proposed system is not installed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Dolan
"I strongly disagree with the application involving King Edward Memorial Park. The park is an extremely popular local amenity and is used by a wide range of local residents. Wapping and Limehouse which border the park are heavily populated areas, and the vast majority of homes are apartments without their own gardens. Accordingly, the park fulfils a very important role for both communities - providing a vital green space. In addition, the riverside pathway running through the Park is very heavily used by walkers, joggers and cyclists. The fresh air and beautiful riverside setting is a key encouragement to locals to exercise. The proposed development would not only make this very popular and well-used amenity unavailable for a period of several years, but would also risk reducing exercise rates in the area. This of course would have very negative consequences, both for local residents directly and for NHS costs indirectly. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward Peshall
"I do not agree that the development should proceed in Carnwath Road. It will involve the area being the subject of heavy traffic congestion for the next 6 to 8 years and will blight values on adjoining properties including mine until the development is complete. In the longer term the smell from the exit column will affect adjoining properties for ever. I think the development should be undertaken in Wandsworth where the area is pricipally open parkland and the disruption isd considerably less."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elm Quay Freehold Ltd & Elm Quay Management Ltd
"My Clients are concerned as to the impact of the works to the property and disruption and noise etc caused to residents as a result of the works when in progress"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Faizal Sherifdeen
"We have looked at your website also spoken to you over the phone but we have not clearly understood how our property be affected by this project. We are considering to sell our property but we think it will be disadvantage. We appreciate if someone can explain in more details regarding this matter."
Non-Statutory Organisations
FPA Financial Corporation Pte Ltd (FPA Financial Corporation Pte Ltd)
"I wish to be informed of any developments related to the project happening around: 1) Kirtling Street 2) Heathwall Pumping Station 3) Albert Embankment Foreshore Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Francesca Hamon
"The consultation for this project seems rushed through without due consideration to residents' objections. For instance at the consultation meeting I attended, the Thames Water/Mouchel consultant I spoke to brushed my views aside and kept insisting the Thames Water plans would not have any impact on my life. This is absolutely untrue and he should have taken note of the points I raised so that Thames Water could take them into account in making their decision. I do not believe this happened. My main objections to this project (that I can express in 500 words) concern: 1) my own health and safety 2) the safety of schoolchildren, parents and pedestrians using the narrow roads at Chambers Wharf, and Jamaica Road 1) I have several health conditions (   ,   , a   and   , which affects my heart. These cause me the following relevant difficulties every day: extremely   that causes serious   ,,   ,   difficulties and panic in the presence of dust or other particles. This is especially severe with building dust. The tunnelling directly under our house will affect my   , my   and my   (and therefore my   and my   ) while it continues. The building work at Chambers Wharf will affect my breathing for the entire duration because Thames Water will not be able to control how building dust travels through the air. I live in Webster Road and use Jamaica Road most days but this will not be possible for the years the work will be taking place because it is very dangerous for me to breathe in any dust - as it affects my   , my   and my   so badly. This will make my life extremely difficult as I will not be able to use the local shops or have access to the tube without putting my health in danger. 2) The additional traffic congestion caused by the extra lorries and cars using Jamaica Road and the Chambers Wharf area will be likely to cause more accidents for cars and pedestrians in those areas. Also, at least one of these roads, George Row, has subsidence and should not be used by heavy vehicles. However, Thames Water has admitted it cannot control which streets its lorry drivers will use, saying 'they [the drivers] are a law unto themselves'. Drivers of heavy lorries also have difficulty seeing pedestrians and children, especially when the lorries are using narrow roads and/or backing. Chambers Wharf is very close to two schools so children, teachers and parents use the narrow roads there every weekday to get to and from the schools, both walking and by car. Over the years of the heavy work Thames Water intends, it seems highly likely that there will be accidents, serious accidents and perhaps even deaths that would not otherwise occur. It would be highly irresponsible for Thames Water to ignore these health and safety issues. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Mehta
"The impact on local residents will be catastrophic , to build a totally unnecessary super sewer. There are other ways of dealing with the problem , digging up large parts of our beautiful city is not the way forward. Breaking up the community in Fulham is not the way forward. The disruption day and night of lorries dirt and noise is unnecessary. Carnwath Road is a residential area, how has this been allowed, has no-one listened? In North America particularly Chicago this Super Sewer system which is being proposed for London has not worked! why are we adopting a failed system? The solution to this is to provide more ground absorption of rainwater throughout London by given incentives to encourage people to collect rainwater from gutters , not to pave driveways, use gravel or grass instead. and in public areas to provide more gravel paths than paving therefore enabling a delay in rainwater reaching the drainage system to the Thames and therefore allowing the existing drainage system to cope adequately with the water flow. 80 pounds per household per year for all Thames Water users for the rest of their lives. Is this the real incentive Thames Water, The Government, this is what the public are saying. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irene Baragli
"I agree with all the points raised by "Save your riverside" campaign."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jenny Sillen
"I own flat   ,   , London,   , which is neighbouring Chambers Wharf"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Enright
"Our house,   , is very near land being excavated to extend the tunnel. It is a Victorian terrace in a narrow street in a conservation area, we are worried about both the disruption during the period of the work and possible subsidence in our property arising from the work."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kenilworth Court Co-Ownership Housing Association Limited (Kenilworth Court Co-Ownership Housing Association Limited)
"KCCHA is concerned that the proposed works adjacent to Putney Bridge will cause vibrations which will damage it's blocks of flats, building structures, pipes and drains along the Lower Richmond, cause the water table to drop and thus cause the buildings to fracture or 'tilt'. The nearest works, which are only 20 metres from the residential buildings, will disrupt the residents and cause the values of properties to decrease. We prefer the movements of materials and equipment to be 100 %. by river barge and not by lorries which will add more pollution to Putney High Street which is already, at times, the most polluted street in London/Europe."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Khalil Zaman and Mrs Hameeda Khunji
"I request that the Putney Wharf Estate be included in the Zone of Influence."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lance Pierson
"[I totally disagree with TW's proposal, as there is a green alternative that would be cheaper, quicker and more effective. It can be shown that TW's rejection of this alternative at consultation stage was flawed.] I object to the proposed means of paying for the scheme - a large compulsory levy on TW customers, who have not been consulted on whether they approve of the scheme. I also object to a proposed drill-site at Carnwath Road Riverside [not to mention all the others!], as it would bring untold misery for some 7 years to neighbouring schools, businesses and residents, many of whom are young, elderly or vulnerable. I object to the fact that this Planning Inspection has not been publicised in the first language of many London residents; and that it has not been widely publicised among TW customers outside the London riverside area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
London Legacy Development Corporation (London Legacy Development Corporation)
"The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) is a Mayoral Development Corporation established under the Localism Act 2011. It is responsible for promoting the regeneration of land within its area as well as for bringing land within its ownership into more effective use. LLDC holds a long lease over plots 20, 21 and 25 (part of the Three Mills Studios) and has recently installed a sprinkler tank and pump house in plot 20 that protects all the buildings on the 3 Mills site. These works were completed as part of a programme to improve the site including improvements to an inadequate flood defence river wall LLDC also holds a range of interests in Plots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 in the Borough of Newham. These interests vested in the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) pursuant to the LTGDC (Lea River Park – Phase 1) Compulsory Purchase Order 2010 and were subsequently transferred to LLDC by order in January 2013. LLDC’s interests in these plots are currently being registered at the Land Registry and the plots will form part of the Lea River Park, a publicly accessible pedestrian and cycle route through the Boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets to the River Thames. The Lea River Park is integral to realising the Mayor of London’s policies in the Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2007) and the Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance, as well as borough policies in the local plans of Newham and Tower Hamlets. LLDC is responsible for delivering the Lea River Park. LLDC fully supports the delivery of the Thames Tideway Tunnel, and does not object to the compulsory acquisition of the subsoil beneath the above plots provided such acquisition does not conflict with LLDC’s ambitions for these plots the hardstanding and subsoil areas of which will be used for construction purposes and to accommodate structures and their foundations and landscaping works to create public rights of way. LLDC objects to the proposed compulsory acquisition of interests in the surface of or any structure in or on the above all these plots (including hardstanding, car parking, shrubbery and tow path). The acquisition of such interests is not necessary for delivery of the Thames Tideway Tunnel and puts full delivery of the Lea River Park at risk as all or some of the plots detailed have the necessary construction and ownership rights to deliver the Lea Valley Park acquired through compulsory purchase. The proposals by Thames Water to acquire or use any part of the surface of these plots will jeopardise its delivery. At 3 Mills the acquisition would interfere with the operation of one studio, and affect parking for all studios. We are not aware of any compelling case for the acquisition of such surface interests and such acquisition conflicts with the public interest in the regeneration of this area. Furthermore, the potential for such surface acquisition was not drawn to our attention when we were first consulted on the proposed DCO. We reserve the right to expand on these objections in evidence to the examination. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Forbes
"I disagree with this application for the following reasons: Community - King Edwards Park is a very well used, beautiful small area which will be rendered virtually unusable for several years. This will have a severely detrimental impact on the local community, particularly those living in the deprived area of Shadwell; just across the road. Many people use the park for health giving activities; jogging, cycling, Tai Chi, exercise, ball games etc. This will all have to stop. Cyclists and joggers will not be able to use the tow path but will be forced up onto the busy Highway. Personally - I live next to the park and work from home. The likely noise and dust, particularly during the summer months when windows are open, is of great concern to me. Unfortunately it has always felt to me as if Thames Water have had no genuine interest in listening to the pleas of local residents. There is a viable alternative, Heckford Street Industrial Estate, which, if chosen, would have a significantly lower negative impact on the community. I would ask the Planning Inspectorate to please review the Heckford site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael David Hutchinson
"1) I am not satisfied that Thames Water has fully assessed alternative, greener strategies that would greatly reduce the volume of storm water that enters the combined sewers - and is therefore discharged from them. (c.f.Philadelphia, USA) 2) That the study about Sustainable Urban Drainage in Putney, on which Thames Water based its decision not to implement this approach, was based on inaccurate data provided by CH2M Hill, which has an interest in the tunnel as TW's tunnel delivery managers. 3) The public consultation was loaded in favour of the super-sewer because the public were not given the chance to consider such alternative strategies. 4) Thames Water sought planning consent on the basis that the super-sewer would prevent 39m tons of rainwater mixed with sewage from entering the Thames each year, whilst knowing that the new Becton tunnel (to be completed in 2014) would reduce this figure to 18m tons. 5) As a Thames Water customer, I find the annual levy of £70-£80 to cover the cost of construction and maintenance of the tunnel is very poor value for money. 6) As a Thames Water customer, I find consultation about the pros and cons of the super-sewer was totally inadequate as there has been no effective forum for dissent. In other words, Thames Water has not helped their customers to obtain genuinely independent expert opinion about the pros and cons of the tunnel. 7) That Thames Water has failed to tell the public about the embedded carbon cost of building the tunnel and life-time energy costs of running its pumps. 8) That the proposed plans for the super-sewer will do nothing to mitigate climate change and that the tunnel may in future become unable to cope with the higher volumes of rainfall associated with a warming climate. 7) That the tunnel will create a more effective way to make money for investors than preventing sewage discharges."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr C Garlington
"I am in full support of the application in it's current form. It is entirely unnaceptable that untreated sewage is currently discharged into this iconic river that runs through the nations capital city. I have studied the scheme in some detail and beleive it is well conceived so as to minimise costs and disruption to the public, whilst providing a modern drainage solution for the city."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Depledge
"1. I have fished the Tidal Thames for a number of years and find the fish kills and damage to the river environment due to pollution unacceptable. 2. The Thames Tunnel is necessary to help prevent such incidents occurring in the near future. 3. The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; British taxpayers could face the prospect of hefty fines, if the tunnel is not built. 4. The health risks for me as an angler and boat user when fishing the tidal Thames are unacceptable. The proposed tunnel will prevent the vast majority of these appalling sewage incidents which occur once a week on average. 5. A cleaner river is not only of benefit for me as an angler and boat user, but it is also has benefits for all those that use the river on a daily basis (such as boaters, rowers etc.), as well as enhancing the reputation of the country as a whole."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Carrier
"I believe that this proposal will adversely effect the lives of the many people living within a few hundred metres of the site for an unreasonably long time, there are health and psychological implications for thousands of people. There are alternatives to this scheme and this site which I do not believe have been properly explored"
Members of the Public/Businesses
P J Cook
" I believe that the disruption that will be caused to myself and many other local residents is far too great and will present serious health and safety issues that have not been fully considered. The high density of population in this area will inevitably result in accidents to local residents, in particular, children, due the high level of vehicle movements. Accepting that a new sewer is a necessary and important requirement its location should be in an area where the danger associated with its construction will not result in an inevitable increase in accident rates to the local population. There have been a number of alternative suggestions been put forward which have not been thoroughly examined and they need to be fully analysed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Borgers
"I am concerned that the tunnel may come quite close to the back of the houses on the north side of Lillian Road and am keen that it follows the central line shown on the map."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Putney Pantry (Putney Pantry)
"Putney Pantry was established by me under a 7 year lease in December 2012. It is a thriving cafe restaurant open 7 days a week from 7.30 am to 8 pm serving coffees and a variety of high quality home-made meals and patissieries. Designed to offer refreshments to an up-market clientele, it is important to retain the relaxed ambience. In addition we cater for private functions and meetings in the Brewer Building. There are tables in the church forecourt and, in the summer, along the river frontage. If the proposed works go forward then we have the following concerns about the business: Disruption to access to the premises for customers and deliveries and reduced footfall. Disruption to use of external spaces, increased pollution dirt and noise and reduced footfall. the possibility of weekend works reducing footfall potential for reduced visibility of the premises from the public highway if trade reduces as a result of these works, we may need to make staff redundant. Putney Pantry uses the arches occupied by the church under the bridge for storage of equipment. There is a possibility that the works might prevent or impede access and/or make it unusable as a result of dirt. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Putney Wharf Association (Putney Wharf Association)
"Putney Wharf Association primarily represents leaseholders at Putney Wharf, SW15,where there are 210 residential units and and some 15 commercial ones. It is understood that such leaseholders have an interest justifying the box-tick above. The only objection PWA has with the application as such is that, while we understand the number of road movements planned has been reduced by roughly half from that originally foreseen, any additional road traffic unacceptable in an area which already has the most polluted street in London. Please therefore require barges to be used, with trucks only be used exceptionally. But there is history of movement of the south river wall between Putney road and rail bridges and I am concerned that the risk of new settlement is not being properly addressed. I understand (from discussion at a 16May2013 meeting with Phil Stride etc.) that St Mary's church has received documentation on a CD indicating that it is in the Zone of Influence. Putney Wharf Estate, which is adjacent to St Mary's, has not received any such communication - which indicates that it is not in the Zone of Influence. I understand that PWA members in general have legal interests in the river wall, which amongst other things protects an underground (and possibly underwater!) garage in which they have interests. Quite apart from the history, the Estate's management is concerned about an existing crack in the river wall to the extent that this is already being monitored. PWA is thus concerned that Thames Tunnel apparently intends to exclude the Estate from the Zone of Influence and requests that it be included. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Winckworth Sherwood (Winckworth Sherwood) on behalf of Reverend Gregory Prior
"This relevant representation is made on behalf of the Reverend Gregory Prior, vicar of All Saints in the London Borough of Wandsworth. All Saints, a grade 2* listed church, occupies a central position in the original village of Wandsworth. The lower parts of its tower were built in 1630. Its north aisle was built in 1724 and the bulk of the church was rebuilt by William Jupp in 1778-80. All Saints is directly affected by Thames Water’s proposals to construct the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The limits of deviation for the tunnel run through subsoil underneath the eastern extremity of the church and also underneath the churchyard and this gives rise to concerns about settlement and subsidence. It is clearly vital that the tunnel boring underneath the church be closely monitored. Thames Water must provide a bespoke settlement deed to address monitoring and the implementation of protective measures. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robin Tam
"The proposed scheme is unnecessary. Other means, less intrusive to the homes and private lives of individuals, could be devised for the purpose of reducing river pollution in the circumstances to which this application is relevant (namely times of sewer overflow). The applicant's promotion of the present scheme to solve the problem is designed to further its private interests, namely to increase its profits through the financial transactions associated with the execution of this scheme; rather than being chosen in the interests of its customers. Even if the proposed scheme is necessary, the use of Chambers Wharf as a main tunnelling site is a very poor choice, given its close proximity to many residential dwellings and to a primary school. The gross disturbance is illustrated by the applicant's public concession that it will have to rehouse many local residents for the duration of the tunnelling works. Rather, the applicant should have adhered to its original plan to use Kings Stairs Gardens. Although it would involve the temporary loss of a public open space, there are alternative public open spaces in the vicinity. This public detriment, if it is necessary at all, would be less intrusive to individuals than the use of a site which will directly and severely affect the very living spaces of many individuals."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sean Lavan
"As the tunnel will be running on a line very close to my property i wish to be informed of the progress of the planning application of the scheme"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Winckworth Sherwood (Winckworth Sherwood) on behalf of South London Church Fund and Southwark Diocesan Board of Finance
"This relevant representation is made on behalf of the South London Church Fund and Southwark Diocesan Board of Finance which is responsible for financing the parish of All Saints with Holy Trinity in the London Borough of Wandsworth. The parish has two congregations, one of which worships at All Saints. All Saints, a grade 2* listed church, occupies a central position in the original village of Wandsworth. The lower parts of its tower were built in 1630. Its north aisle was built in 1724 and the bulk of the church was rebuilt by William Jupp in 1778-80. All Saints is directly affected by Thames Water’s proposals to construct the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The limits of deviation for the tunnel run through subsoil underneath the eastern extremity of the church and also underneath the churchyard and this gives rise to concerns about settlement and subsidence. It is clearly vital that the tunnel boring underneath the church be closely monitored. Thames Water must provide a bespoke settlement deed to address monitoring and the implementation of protective measures. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
St Nicholas' with St Luke's Parochial Church Council
"This relevant representation is made on behalf of the parochial church council of St Nicholas’ with St Luke’s Church, Deptford in the London borough of Lewisham. St Luke’s Church, one of two churches in the parish of St Nicholas’ and St Luke’s, is directly affected by Thames Water’s proposals to construct the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The limits of deviation for the tunnel run through subsoil underneath the eastern extremity of the church. This gives rise to grave concerns about settlement and subsidence. St Luke’s Church, which was constructed in 1870-72, is currently incapable of being used because its tower and eastern extremity are unstable. Given their precarious state, it is clearly vital that the tunnel boring underneath the church be closely monitored. Thames Water must provide a bespoke settlement deed to address monitoring and the implementation of protective measures. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen William Baker
"I write with regard to the proposed project to site a super sewer in Carnwath Road Fulham. I am writing to object to this plan and provide you with good reasons why. Clearly I am a local resident and it is easy to say “Not in my backyard”. However, you have to be aware of the following significant reasons: 1. South Fulham was a light industrial and dock area until recent times. However over the past 20 years there has been a major development of dense, new housing which has transformed the area. I believe that I am right in saying that the area is one of the densest housing areas along the river Thames. To site a super sewer right in the middle will affect Fulham and Wandsworth. From my front window I can count no fewer than a dozen blocks of flats in the immediate vicinity. 2. The area has a number of schools in the very near vicinity, most if not all are primary schools. The risk of injury from road traffic accident or illness through pollution of building etc. is high from your project. Do you really intend to have a negative impact on nearly 5,000 children? 3. The area in which you intend to build has a number of width restriction roads. These are there for a reason. Carnwath Road is an extremely busy road, being a rat run from Wandsworth Bridge to the Fulham Palace Road and Hammersmith. Your construction traffic will increase this load intolerably, damage infrastructure and bring this area of London to a grinding halt. 4. Roads in the part of London are narrow and quite old. Heavy traffic will just jam the area up completely. Try to get out of here in rush hour!! 5. The fact that you call it the Thames Tideway is clearly designed to mask the real adjective and noun, a super sewer! Why? Because you know that despite that claims there will be a big stink from it and it will be unacceptable once built. 6. The scheme will totally blight the Piper building, an architectural landmark. 7. The idea of putting a super sewer in the middle of a residential area rather than in the playing fields of Barnes is simply perverse. In Fulham affect loads of people, in Barnes affect a few footballers. And why not Wandsworth Park? Etc. There are so many sites that seem less damaging as to be worrying that you have decided here. Lots Road Power station, more than big enough and fewer houses, Battersea Power Station, Battersea Park, Wandsworth Park, Barn Elms. All brown or green and not impactful on residential areas. 8. The potential negative impact on many young people studying for exams etc over a 7 – 10 year period is breathtakingly damaging. I am in my 50’s so no problem for me there, but for them it is a serious issue. 9. Clearly there will be an impact on property prices. This will be a personal tragedy for householders. But, the cost to the exchequer is also huge in an area of above average house prices to reduce sales tax dramatically. I believe that your decision is driven by profit alone insofar as access to Carnwath Road by river is easy and cheap and therefore is good for you. Think again with a little more public spirit and consideration. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Tyler
"My property is directly adjacent to Chambers Wharf. My west facing bedroom and sitting room windows and balcony look directly over the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) Chambers Wharf site and the proposed coffer dam. TTT has advised me that he they will be assuming the land under my building via subsoil rights for tunnelling purposes. I will be surrounded on 3 sides by construction for the duration of the project (Chambers Wharf to the west, Coffer dam to the North/North West and tunnelling operations under my building). At the end of the project, two 5 meter ventilation shafts will be permanently positioned directly in front of my west facing bedroom and lounge windows and balcony. At this stage I do not know what impact the ventilation shafts will have on my health and well being due to foul smelling bad odours. Following are a list of direct impacts the proposed TTT development at Chambers Wharf will have on me for the duration of the construction: I will be severely impacted health wise, mentally and financially. I will be unable to sell my property for at least 10 years as no one would want to live adjacent to a 24 hour 7 day a week construction site. I will suffer a financial loss if I have to sell my property below or at the price I paid for it. The property is currently on the market with no viewings at this stage. I will be unable to rent the property for the above reasons or have to accept a much reduced rental which will not cover my living expenses (mortgage, bills etc). I will be well into my 70's before I can recover my investment and provide for my retirement and will have to continue to work way past normal retirement age. This all assumes that the project is delivered on time and my health permits. My sleep will be disturbed due to the 24 hour 7 day a week construction (noise, artificial lighting and general activity on the site, e.g. loading of barges). My wife has been diagnosed with an Anxiety/Panic disorder. The disruption to her life will severely impact her well being. I endured the demolition of the old warehouse on the Chambers Wharf site. The vibration and noise almost sent me insane. Barges were loaded at all times of the day due to the varying tides. Excavators were used to load the barges, there was severe noise, vibration, dust and bright lights. I am fully aware of what the impact will be on me and my neighbours should the proposal proceed, as I have already experienced it. No amount of assurance or promise of noise mitigation will convince me otherwise. There are viable alternatives to the TTT plans for Chambers Wharf which will dramatically reduce the impact on me and residents adjacent to the site which have not been considered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Williams
"My wife and I own a river front flat directly opposite the proposed site. We experience occasional noise nuisance from riverboat parties passing our flat (usually in the summer months). According to the proposals from 2017 there will be 3 years of 24 hour work on the site also involving a coffer dam in the river for loading spoil. The noise pollution is likely be intolerable for us. There are no measures proposed to ameliorate the noise pollution from the project on the north bank. My wife and I will be in our seventies in 2017 we had been looking forward to a peaceful retirement in our beautiful flat, it now looks like we shall have to move out for three years We understand that Thames Water already own a suitable site for the project in Bow which would have a much lower impact on local residents, why is this site not being used ?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thames Anglers' Conservancy (Thames Anglers' Conservancy)
"Planning Inspectorate reference: WW010001 - I am Treasurer of the Thames Anglers' Conservancy and will represent my views at the later stages as a member of the Committee. As an avid angler on the Tidal Thames for the last 40 years I am fully aware and appreciate the growing need to improve the tideway for all the aquatic species that are essential for a healthy urban waterway. Over the last ten years I have witnessed 3 major pollution incidents on the tideway, through the use of legal sewage discharges that have killed approximately 1 million fish - as well as millions of other aquatic life forms. This is totally unacceptable. The need to begin redressing such devastating incidents needs to be taken as soon as possible. As has been well publicised, millions of tonnes of raw sewage entering the Tidal Thames on an annual basis can be prevented to a great extent through the proposed Thames Tunnel by Thames Water Plc. The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and as a British taxpayer we would all face the prospect of hefty fines, if the tunnel is not built. The current capacity of the entire sewage system needs to be upgraded, as the average CSO discharge events of around one per week are unacceptable for a City that rightly considers itself as a world leading Global City. Please consider our history and the 'The Year of the Great Stink' in 1858, it won't be too long before we edge closer to a similar situation some 150 years hence. The opportunity to initiate the first stages of enhancing our capital's reputation/responsibility (as a global leader concerning the environment of our River Thames), needs to be implemented without delay. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Battersea Barge (The Battersea Barge)
"The Battersea barge is a permanently moored vessel and is a licensed restaurant and bar specialising in live entertainment. We have been advised that we will have to shift several metres in a westward directionand it has been suggested that we might have to sail off somewhere while a new grid and piles are put in place for our new position. This would cause no end of disruption to our business and we have asked that the new grid and piles could be put in place while we stay put and then we could easily slide in to the new position. We would also ask that this is just a temporary measure as we will in fact be blocking emergency (or otherwise) access to the vessels in the inlet dock."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Ardent Management Limited (Ardent Management Limited) on behalf of Vaughan Limited
"Vaughan Limited is the leasehold owner and occupier of Unit 23 Carnwath Road Industrial Estate, Fulham, London SW6 3HR. Vaughan Limited objects to the Thames Tideway Tunnel Development Consent Order for the following reasons: 1. The original proposal of combining the Tunnel Drive Site with the Combined Sewer Overflow at Barn Elms is a more appropriate and sensitive proposal. This would not only reduce the number of construction sites in the area, it would also locate the Tunnel Drive Site in a less densely populated area and have a lesser impact on businesses and residents. Thames Water has, without proper justification, instead moved the proposed Tunnel Drive Site to Carnwath Road. This will cause an unnecessary relocation of profitable businesses at the risk of local jobs, delayed development of the river frontage adjoining Carnwath Road Industrial Estate and ultimately add additional cost to an already highly expensive project. For these reasons the Carnwath Road Industrial Estate was categorised as ‘less suitable’ than the Barn Elms site in relation to ‘socio-economy and community’ aspects within the promoter’s Phase 2 Scheme Development Report, which also identified that ‘eight businesses will need to be temporarily or permanently displaced’, and thereby significant compensation will be payable. It is not clear why, despite the Barn Elms site being identified as a more suitable site, the DCO has included the Carnwath Road site instead, and we feel there is no justification for this decision. 2. Whilst we understand that the proposed scheme is likely to bring about environmental improvements, we question whether compulsory purchase powers should be used to displace businesses and thereby cause economic disadvantage, not only to the businesses themselves but also to neighbouring communities, within which a high percentage of our workforce live. We do not believe that the environmental improvements that the scheme will provide are proportionate to economic and social damage that will be caused by the use of Carnwath Road Industrial Estate, particularly when it has already been acknowledged by the promoter that other more suitable sites are available to be used for the same purpose. 3. The success of our business relies heavily on the fact that our three premises are in close proximity to one another. The majority of customers visit the showroom at Chelsea Harbour and then travel the short distance to the warehouse to collect the goods they have purchased. Should our property at Carnwath Road be acquired it will be critical for the business to retain three buildings in close proximity to each other. It is deemed unlikely that a suitable replacement in the local proximity will be found given the level of space currently occupied by the business (just over 12,000 sq ft), and to date the promoter has made no efforts to either seek to acquire our interest by agreement or identify any suitable accommodation within which we may relocate. All three of our buildings have been extensively customised at great cost to the business, which makes it more difficult still to identify any suitable alternative accommodation, and we are concerned that we will be unable to find suitable accommodation in the event that our interest is acquired at short notice by the promoter, as would be a possibility if the DCO is confirmed. Without alternative accommodation having been identified and suitably customised sufficiently in advance of our current accommodation being acquired, the business would suffer significant financial losses as a result. 4. Currently 54 people are employed at this site, a high percentage of which are local to the area and will be unable to afford to travel if the business is relocated away from this area. Many of these staff have worked for the business for many years and their skills are critical to the business. Not only are we concerned about the effect this will have on our business, but we also have a deep concern regarding the ability of these staff to find similar manual work in the local area. The potential loss of these loyal staff will be significant both in terms of social impacts and also financial cost, not least because of the redundancy payments which will flow directly from the acquisition of our premises. 5. The business is already experiencing existing staff and new recruits expressing concerns about the uncertainty over the future of this site. They are concerned about their job security and this inevitably is having a negative effect on staff moral, the company image and also on productivity and subsequently on our profits. We object that we have not been provided with any certainty by the promoter and we have therefore been unable to effectively plan our business operation in the mid to long term, whilst the uncertainty has meant operating business as usual and planning in the short-terms is also compromised. We trust that our concerns will be suitably considered and we hope the social and economic damage which will be brought about by using the Carnwath Road Industrial Estate for the works will be recognised, and the Order will consequently be modified such that the site is removed. In the event that this site is to be retained in the Order, we would welcome a meeting with the promoter in order to obtain assurances about how our business will be affected, what the timeframe is likely to be, the period of notice we will be afforded and the assistance which will be offered to identify suitable premises within which to relocate. This is essential in order for us to effectively plan and manage our business, and to ensure that we are able to mitigate the financial losses that we suffer. Yours faithfully, Tim Coles "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alexis Nolte
"I am greatly concerned by the planned constructions for the Thames Water ‘super-sewer’ at the King Edward Memorial Park (KEMP) for the following reasons. The Highway is already a heavy traffic road and noise is at the limit of what is bearable despite double glassing. I am concerned about the significant increase in construction traffic in the area that construction at the KEMP site will create. I even have more concern if construction starts before 9 am and extends after 6 pm or takes place on Saturdays and/or Sundays. Heavy traffic. Construction barges are also likely to generate significant noise (movement, clanging against each other…) during the night. Drilling and heavy lorry traffic will cause vibration and deterioration of my property as already with the current traffic, my flat is vibrating when heavy trucks pass by. It is also likely that the construction will also generate substantial dust which will worsen my allergic condition. In addition, construction will reduce access and cause long term deterioration to the KEMP which is the only green park in the area. Living in a city like London requires people and schools to have access to this park. I consider that the impact of Thames Water’s plans for KEMP on the community is unreasonably excessive in particular since there is a better alternative: the Heckford Street Industrial Estate which would have a lower impact on the community and on the availability of green parks in London. Therefore I appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to review the justification for choosing the KEMP site and the feasibility of choosing the Heckford Street Industrial Estate brownfield site instead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Versteeg
"I live at Hermitage Community Moorings, Wapping, E1W 1NG, and understand that major works in conjunction with the Thames Tunnel will take place opposite our site which will have major implications on the river traffic, which will have to pass at our side of the river.There are concerns for the safety of the families and children living in our community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Towler
"I object strongly to TW's plans for King Edward Memorial Park (KEMP). I do not believe the plans have taken proper note of local residents objections during the consultation process and I think the Heckford option, which is a brownfield site, would be a much better option and would avoid negatively impacting KEMP which is a precious local amenity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Arthur Talbot
"I do not wish to make a representation at this time but I reserve my right to do so at a later stage in the process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
B Ash
"This project would create an a colossal debt (£4.1 billion today's estimate). Green stormwater infrastructure, as pioneered by the American city of Philadelphia, is a tried and tested alternative to the super sewer. The project would be hugely carbon intensive. Massive pumps would be installed that would require small power stations to feed them and the volume of necessary concrete would be shifted by heavy duty vehicles. Given that construction of the tunnel will come at the expense of greener, more sustainable solutions, and I have an interest in preventing and mitigating climate change, I am an interested party. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Betty Van Der Raedt
"I don't like it at all. Surely you can use a brown field site for this. I am disabled with a stroke and use the park for my physiotherapy on a daily basis. How will the local community enjoy any access to green space with this intrusive project? The quality of all our lives will be damaged unnecessarily."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bill Bloom
"I would like to be registered as an interested party in regards to the Thames Tideway Tunnel."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Martyr
"I object to the application being made by Thames Water because I do not believe enough consideration has been given to alternative solutions to the problem of overflows into the Thames. The proposed supersewer is not guaranteed to answer current overflow problems and indeed has been shown not to work as effectively as promised in the case of Milwaukee for example. A number of studies have shown this proposal to be the most costly of all the possible solutions available and it seems to be an irresponsible use of taxpayers' money when the benefits are questionable. The Chambers Wharf project specifically will cause massive disruption in a densely populated area for many years. There will be unacceptable levels of noise, dust and traffic and peoples' lives will be made a misery. There is clearly a need to upgrade the sewage system, to prevent overflows into the river etc, but having looked at a number of reports it seems that this can be done using a combination of alternative solutions - upgrading existing treatment works, source control, SUDS retrofits, in-river treatment in those parts of the river which show low levels of oxygen etc etc - which can be targeted towards the areas at greatest risk and cost significantly less than the proposed tunnel. This proposal is very unimaginative, is too expensive and will not deliver the required results. Think again please."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Nicolas Robertson
" Whilst I understand the need for the tunnel I suggest that further consideration should be given to revising the proposed route in North Barnes where so many properties (in particular those in Lillian Road which, with few exceptions, were built in the 1880s/1890s) have such inadequate foudations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Poll
"1. Since my residential home's garden immediately boarders the river Thames. Whilst today it is outside the immediate sphere of influence, I petition for it to be included within the sphere of influence due to long term instability of my section of the river wall. For the past 10 tears as the result of a High Court action the owners of adjacent property carried out works to stabilise the river wall that had become unstable. 2. That all materials and suppliers should be carried to a from the Putney site by river on barges and only by special exception by road. The reason for this request is that Putney High Street has the highest polution rates of any High Street in London and some 8,000 lorry journeys would considerably add to this high pollution as well as increase traffic conjestion in an already congested area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Wainwright
"i would like to make a written representation at a later date"
Local Authorities
City of London Corporation (City of London Corporation)
"The City of London Corporation (COL) is the local authority for the City of London and is also affected by the application as landowner in its public and private capacities and in its capacity as trustee of Bridge House Estates (BHE). The COL supports the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel as set out in the City of London Core Strategy (CS) Policy CS9 but has not yet agreed aspects of the project summarised below. Discussions with TW are on-going to seek to reach agreement where possible:- 1. The COL requires all opportunities to be taken to increase use of river transport in constructing the scheme so as to keep the traffic effects of the scheme to a minimum. 2. The stopping-up of part of Paul’s Walk with a proposed replacement permissive path over private land involves loss of a public right of way along the Thames Path west of Blackfriars Bridge. This is contrary to saved UDP Policy TRANS 7 which supports the retention and improvement of public rights of way. The COL considers that this public right of way to the first point where the new embankment steps up to Victoria Embankment should be retained. 3. Suitable permanent public and/or private access rights to the retained public toilets, rifle range and Blackfriars Bridge structure will be required together with additional rights. 4. To safeguard public amenity it is necessary for future maintenance of and public access arrangements over the new embankment to be agreed between the COL and TW. These issues and other heads of terms for a Section 106 agreement are under discussion with TW. 5. Ownership and future maintenance of the new stairs on the west and east sides of Blackfriars Bridge is still to be agreed. These stairs were originally constructed by the COL under statutory powers in the 1960s. If not part of a GLA road maintainable by TfL the COL’s preference is for the COL as trustee of BHE to maintain the new stairs (subject to any charity issues being resolved). If BHE is to maintain the stairs it will require necessary powers in the DCO (i.e. application of the Blackfriars Bridge Act 1863 to the new stairs) and ownership of the stairs. 6. Ownership and future maintenance of the new lift to the east of Blackfriars Bridge is still to be agreed. The same issues as set out above in relation to the stairs need to be resolved and the necessary statutory powers applied to the new lift in the DCO together with ownership of the new facilities if the COL as trustee of BHE is to maintain them. Funding arrangements for future maintenance of the lift will need to be agreed. 7. The extent of public rights of way to be stopped up needs to be clarified (e.g. public rights of way are likely to have been acquired over both sets of existing stairs but neither is identified in Schedule 7 of the DCO as a public right of way to be stopped up) and any subsequent dedication or replacement rights of way for those which are stopped up. 8. The extent of land to be compulsorily purchased needs clarification (e.g. where limited to ‘subsoil’ or other levels). 9. TW shall not demolish the public toilets or the rifle range without compulsory purchase. TW shall not compulsory purchase the services subway or any part of Blackfriars Bridge structure (other than the stairs). 10. The new pontoon is to be accessed by a gangway from Paul’s Walk. This involves construction of a ramp and stairs on part of Paul’s Walk which will obstruct the highway. A minimum width must be maintained. There is insufficient room to accommodate the ramp and footpath without using the adjoining City Walkway. Paul’s Walk will need to be strengthened to accept additional loading from the ramp and any emergency vehicles but the services subway located below Paul’s Walk can only bear pedestrian loading. 11. The proposals involve removal of a section of wall on the north side of Paul’s Walk and installation of a gate. Details are required to show how the emergency access will be made from Upper Thames Street to Paul’s Walk level as there is a significant difference in levels between the two highways. Plus the COL is concerned that an unlocked gate at this point will encourage the public on to this dangerous junction where pedestrian access is currently unavailable. 12. The proposals affect services subways under Victoria Embankment and Paul’s Walk both of which are maintained by the COL under different local legislation. The COL need to retain ownership of the services subways. To ensure that the COL can continue to maintain any altered or rebuilt service subways pursuant to local legislation the DCO will need to apply those statutory powers to the altered or rebuilt service subways. TW must do any necessary strengthening works and reinstate any active cabling into the altered /rebuilt service subways to prevent unnecessary works in the highway. 13. The proposals involve removing part of the river wall and using the remainder as support for the new embankment. The COL requires that part of the river wall within its ownership (subject to it not being part of/retained as a GLA road) to be compulsorily acquired by TW as it will support their new embankment structure. Alternatively TW should remove the wall and build its own structure against the COL’s subsoil. 14. The new embankment would be located in an area of important visual interest and amenity and settings of very significant listed buildings. The COL would expect the treatment of the public realm and associated structures to be of the highest quality. TW have stated that these issues would be the subject of approval under the requirements. However, the COL is concerned that there would be insufficient scope for significant changes. The COL will continue a dialogue with TW in relation to the requirements. 15. Method statements should be agreed with the COL in relation to protection of and dealing with archaeological remains, heritage assets, affected highway/river wall fixtures and fittings and in relation to alterations or other works to the river wall and services subways. 16. Asset protection agreements are yet to be agreed to protect affected COL structures (e.g the BHE bridges including preserving the operational function of Tower Bridge). The DCO does not provide adequate safeguards. 17. The draft DCO states that the demolition and construction works will be carried out under Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Further information will be required on how noise and vibration from demolition and construction works will be monitored. 18. The Thames Tideway Scheme and the relocation of the pier during their construction and operational phases could give rise to noise and other nuisances arising from a variety of sources to adjacent occupiers both sides of the River. Occupiers that could be impacted include businesses, residents, schools and transport providers. A detailed analysis specific to the site and surroundings would need to be made of likely impacts and the mitigation measures that will be required to minimise these impacts. E.g. the operational hours of the School, public exam periods etc. 19. TW propose to include sustainable urban drainage on the site in order to reduce the possibility of surface water flooding. Rainwater harvesting to supply WC flushing water for the public toilets or for landscape watering should also be considered. 20. The COL seeks reassurance that that an Infrastructure Provider will be capable of delivering the project in accordance with the requirements. 21. The provisions of the DCO itself are not yet agreed and are still under discussion including the disapplication/exclusion of statutory provisions some of which may affect the COL’s ability to fulfil its statutory network management/highway authority functions, extension of defences to statutory nuisance post construction, the definition of “maintenance”, breadth of some of the powers (particularly post construction) and need to apply certain statutory provisions to the COL as referred to above. 22. The COL would expect the examining panel members to have the appropriate breadth of experience to deal with the above issues. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Percival
"Following UN, EU, UK and GLA legislation, the NPS for Wastewater requires drainage systems to be sustainable, to improve public health, to direct storm water away from foul sewers, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Separate drainage of rain to watercourses minimises storage, pumping and treatment, reduces greenhouse gases, stops all flooding of homes and businesses, and stops all pollution of streams and rivers, as well as estuaries. The proposed tunnel requires twice the volume, and hence structure embodied energy, hugely increases pumping and treatment, and hence greenhouse gas emission, does not stop any flooding and only helps the estuary. Running the existing computer model of London’s system with proposed changes under various storms would show the effect of diverting rain from roads and larger roof areas to surpass the benefits of the proposed tunnel. The separation costs presented for the Environmental Statement are for a foul sewer system, while the requirements and hence costs for a storm water system are greatly overstated in several ways, and could be halved. In the Environmental Statement the additional long term environmental benefits, and the financial savings that can be deducted from construction cost estimates, of storm water separation are not correctly stated or valued. Recent projects show that laying new piped systems in cities can proceed swiftly and can be coordinated with other planned works, with each area being disturbed for about 2-4 months, after which any local flooding is stopped. The EU Directive specifically permits drain improvements to be phased, such that all flood alleviation is only achieved after the nominal deadline, with funding from rates without loans, and creating steady local employment. Since the major extra pumping and treatment for the proposed tunnel can be avoided, it will contribute to the continuing need for fossil fuel use in the UK until this is completely replaced by extra renewable power supplies. The long term environmental costs of major extra pumping and treatment, and the interest and fee costs for the large loans, are not included in the cost estimates for the proposed tunnel used in the Environmental Statement. Seperation is a Government Key Policy, and would give considerable net environmental benefits, whereas with the proposed tunnel the quite limited environmental benefits are outweighed by the adverse environmental impacts. Separation alone complies with all NPS for Wastewater demands, but is incorrectly assessed in the Environmental Statement, and must be independently evaluated to ensure the system we fund, lasting aeons, is the best. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Waterhouse
"I represent a small community of 24 people living on houseboats at Tideway Village. XXX XXX. We are concerned that our way of life will be impacted by the nearby Thames Water 'Tunnel' work. Noise, dust and restricted views and light are all a concern. A plan for 'the greater good' is the argument but we have lived here for many years and expect to have our rights and way of life protected from the worst aspects of being alongside the equivelent of a mine shaft. Is air polution another risk? We expect you to take our community into account when you draw up your final plans for construction/excavation. Whatever your priorities are humans and their homes should come first. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Carew
"Chambers Wharf is a highly populated residential riverside site lying just east of Tower Bridge in the London Borough of Southwark. There are over 150 residences directly adjacent to the site (many within a mere 1 metre ) and there are two schools attended by over 1000 pupils within 30 metres and 50 metres from the edge of the site. In addition, it is a Thames riverside site, on the Thames Path route which is listed in all guide-books. The community around Chambers Wharf were looking forward to the site being developed into one of the greenest residential sites in London with recreational facilities and the river walkway would have been extended from East Lane to Cherry Gardens. Now Thames Water is considering turning Chambers Wharf into an industrial zone destroying our local community. Residents, pupils and local businesses will all be severely affected by the construction which will take at least seven years, three years of which will be 24 hours a day for 7 days a week. During the construction there will be increased heavy vehicle traffic on the local roads, which are not only narrow but also where the schools are located posing a real danger to school children and local residents. Construction so close to residents and schools for such a length of time would be a major source of air pollution possibly causing respiratory illnesses, asthma and bronchitis. The whole riverside east of Tower Bridge will lose its appeal. Bermondsey Riverside could become, again, for the next ten years a depressed area, extending into Rotherhithe and beyond. Once completed, the site will have sewage ventilation vents and Thames Water cannot guarantee there won’t be sewage smells"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Redstone
"I fundamentally disagree with the vaibility of the super sewer. I see it as a short term fix, and am convinced that the issue needs much further investigation regarding the alternatives. In this particular case I live just across the road from one of the proposed ventilation shafts and I am strongly opposed to it's siting in a valuable local green space, next door to both a Grade II listed church and a primary school."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eric Sivry
"Disagree with super sewer in Wapping. Degradation of local community life. Degradation of green spaces."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Franc Vissers
"The current planned route for the Thames Tunnel includes a section that will pass between Lillian Road and the south side of St Pauls School in North Barnes. As a resident of Lillian Road I and many of my neighbours believe that the Tunnel route can be easily altered to pass north of St Pauls School thereby not affecting any property south of the river at all. We believe that this simple adjustment has not to date been considered and as residents immediately affected we have not been given an opportunity to consult on this. At the one local meeting that was afforded us by Thames Water, Lillian Road residents were presented with the current plan as the only option available. It was explained that the earlier planned route (through Hammersmith) from phase 1 and 2 of consultation could not proceed because the tunnel would intersect two pipes somewhere near Hammersmith Bridge. Those pipes it was explained are at the same depth as the proposed Tunnel. We have asked for more detail on these supposed barriers but have not had a reply. We are therefore sceptical as to the validity of this and in any case believe that the route we would suggest varies so little from the current plan that it is not possible to have the same problem occur. Our solution is to simply begin the 600meter radial arc into the Thames some 200 meters further north. No greater amount of residences north of the river will be affected and none south of the river. The tunnel would then roughly follow the toe path on the south side of the river and into the river East of Hammersmith Bridge. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Jones
"I am the Leaseholder of a flat in the Putney Wharf development"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hermitage Community Moorings (Hermitage Community Moorings)
"I support the need for the Thames Sewer but disagree with Chambers Wharf as a major drilling site. The original proposal was for the main drilling at Abbey Mills. This was changed to Chambers Wharf not because of reducing community impact but down to cost. Chambers Wharf is going to impact the local community with 24hour noise and air pollution, not to mention heavy traffic. I represent a historic moorings for 18 residential vessels directly across the water from Chambers Wharf in Wapping. Our major concerns are: The noise pollution from 24/7 loading of barges Restriction of the thames with the coffer dam and additional wash of rivercraft this will cause. Seven years of distruption There are viable non-residential alternatives to Chambers Wharf which need to be looked at."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Islay Symonette
"Noise pollution and hours of operation during construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James McIlroy
" The Chambers Street proposal is I consider totally unsuitable to be used as a major industrial site being in the centre oF a heavily residential area, including schools in close proximity to the site. The noise dust and pollution will have a terrible effect on every ones well being. A 24 x 7 construction site lasting for many years will be intolerable for everyone in the wider area and will very likely have a negative effect on the health of all concerned.. A project of this scale can't possible be carried out without causing subsidence which will effect swaths of property in the area, reducing values and preventing any movement for any residents contemplating moving . This will also effect owners who have invested life savings in property who will be prevented from redeeming their investment. The traffic congestion will cause huge problems and damage to for this vital corridor into the centre of London and create intolerable difficulties for all local residents. No residential area should have to bear the impact of this type of construction there are alternative solutions to clean up the Thames and these are both cheaper and greener than this single untried idea, indeed even those original proposing the tunnel are now questioning the idea. This project asks every Thames Water customer to pay for this construction in perpetuity few have been consulted and fewer still realise what is being proposed and how they will be affected long into the future. If this is the only Thames Water proposal I sincerely hope the Government finds other contractors and a more environmentally sympathetic proposal this should not be allowed to proceed any further Yours sincerely James McIlroy       London SE1 2EB "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Burton
"I have nothing to say at the moment"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jens KLeyenstuber & Jenny Koch
"We are the residents of   and own the leasehold to our propery. I therefore registering our (Jenny Koch and Jens KLeyenstuber) personal interest. Our immediate concern with the application is the close proximity (line of sight) of Stockhurst Close to the proposed Barn Elms construction site. We are anxious about the disruptions, noise and other pollution that comes with such a construction. Stockhurst Close and our property are very close to the Barn Elms construction site and we are extremely concerned that the work there are likely to cause a material adverse effect to our rights to peaceful enjoyment of our property. Our main concerns are: (1) The significant disruption in terms of noise and light pollution from the works. (2) The increased traffic in the area (together with related noise and disruption). (3) Potential damage to our property, for example from vibrations and/or subsidence caused by the intended works. We have additional concerns regarding the potential odours during and after the works and are keen to receive proper reassurance that appropriate steps will be taken to mitigate any and all unpleasant odours. Finally, in addition to the above, we also have legitimate concerns regarding the current and future rental value and re-sale value of our property in the event that we were to decide to let it to tenants or sell the lease on to one or more purchasers. We wish to be kept fully informed of the intended works at Barn Elms, and to have the right to be present and speak at meetings (and to make further written representations if we choose to do so)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jo Cox
"I disagree with the noise implications of this"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Wallen
"I believe that insufficient consideration has been given to the value of the park and waterfront to the entire local community. An alternative brownfield site has been proven to be equally effective for Thames Water's purpose. It is criminal to shut off the wonderful waterfront part of this local park, which is used by such a diverse cross section of the local community, for the profit considerations of a large public company. This is not about our sewage, it is about Thames Water's self-interest!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Hugh Darnton
"I am extremely concerned that the new tideway tunnel will be drilled only 30 metres below the foundations of my house. I understand that the route of the tunnel in south west london only effects the foundations of approximately 40 freehold houses along Lillian Road, SW13. I urge that the route of the tunnel falls equidistant between the recently erected science block buildings of St Paul's School (approved only 2 years ago by Richmond Council) and the boundaries of the rear gardens of houses along the North (riverside) of Lillian Road Numbers 82 to 40. i.e. The tunnel should be routed below St Paul's School private access road and new landscape gardens. The proposals as they stand are a blight and effect the current value of my home and those of my neighbours."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Shepherd
"This public green in Deptford’s town centre lies between Deptford Church Street, Coffey Street and Crossfield Street. It is one of the few leafy open spaces in Deptford’s urban environment. A lot of money and time is being spent on making the centre of town a better place to live and work but undertaking construction works by building a shaft 46 meters deep and 17 meters in diameter to the sewers on the park and leaving sewer vents and a Thames Water work “kiosk” would only detract from these improvements. This proposed Thames Tunnel construction site is right next to St Joseph’s primary school! It is close to Tidemill school, too, and borders Deptford High Street as well as many homes. It is also close to many buisnesses and places of worship. As such its impact would be deeply felt by the community here, particularly our children. The green is in Deptford’s conservation area. It is right next to two listed buildings, St Paul’s church and the railway viaduct which are both central to the history and the beauty of the area. Using this site for Thames Tunnel works would disturb one of the few spaces in Deptford where it is possible to get a sense of what Deptford once was like. I do not dispute the importance of Thames Tunnel works. I do, however, urge Thames Water not to undertake works on green space. Furthermore, I believe works should not be undertaken on a site imbued with such historical importance and which is so central to community life when other sites are available in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Josephine Talbot
"I do not agree that this tunnel should go under our house when their is room for it to runalong the Thames river. This road is known to flood at time and i dont think that this project will help."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Cowell
"It is ridiculous to build a site like this so close to such a highly populated area, where there are many primary, secondary and nursery schools. The pollution, noise pollution, traffic and dangers in general it will bring to Fulham will be more than regrettable and a huge mistake. Don't make such a big mistake having this scale of construction site in an area that will result in massive stress to all around, residents, school children, commuters. Its a distasterous idea, and serious thought needs to be given now before it's too late."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Leyland on behalf of Katie DeAlbuquerque
"We would like to argue against the route taken by the tunnel between Lillian Road and St Pauls School in Richmond Upon Thames. Our argument is for a change in route for the tunnel. We would suggest not a return to Phase 1 and 2 of the consultation (which supposedly intersects a pipe or two somewhere yet to be determined), but for a third solution that we have no reason to believe has until now been explored. That is for a simple adjustment to the Eastbound arc of the tunnel, beginning as it proposed now in Netherhavon Gardens in Chiswick. By starting the same arc 150 yards further north, the tunnel would pass north of St Pauls School and Lillian Road - avoiding impact to some 90 households along the length of Lillian Road and many residents of Riverside Gardens. The route would roughly follow the Thames toe path to join the river to the east of Hammersmith Bridge. No more residents to the north of the Thames would be affected, the pipes would be avoided, and importantly the foundations of Hammersmith Bridge, St Pauls School and the residents of Lillian Rd and Riverside Gardens. That's a lot of reasons to consider this minimal adjustment. Many thanks. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Wall
"There will be significant disruption to the lives of people living, working and going to school in the vacinity of Chambers Wharf. This disruption will harm businesses, cause stress, reduce property values, harm childrens schooling as well as causing significant traffic chaos. The social and financial costs of this disruption have not featured accurately in any element of the application as it relates to the Chambers Wharf site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lauren Dunford
"I am the leaseholder and sole occupier of   . The freeholder is Wandsworth Borough Council and I own a long lease (approximately 90 years). Stockhurst Close and my property, in particular, is very close indeed to the intended Barn Elms construction site. I am extremely concerned that the work there is likely to cause a material adverse effect to my rights to peaceful enjoyment of my property. My main concerns are (1) the significant disruption in terms of noise and light pollution from the works, (2) the increased traffic in the area (and related noise and disruption), and (3) potential damage to my property, for example from vibrations and/or subsidence caused by the intended works. I have additional concerns regarding the potential odours during and after the works and I am keen to receive proper reassurance that appropriate steps will be taken to mitigate any and all unpleasant odours. Finally, in addition to the above, I also have legitimate concerns regarding the current and future rental value and re-sale value of my property in the event that I were to decide to let it to tenants or sell the lease on to one or more purchasers. I wish to be kept fully informed of the intended works at Barn Elms, and to have the right to be present and speak at meetings (and to make further written representations if I choose to do so)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marc Burke
"I am in support of the Save Kemp Community Campaign. I don't agree with Thames Water's plans for King Edward Memorial park. The impact on the community are unreasonable especially given there is a viable alternative. I regularly relax in the park and play tennis and run around the park for relaxation and jealth benefits. The noise and dust pollution that will occur will greatly increase the stress of living in the area. I am also concerned about the impact on the value of my property and the potential impact should I have to leave the area the rental value of my propoerty is likely to be also detrimentally impacted."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Marine Conservation Society (Marine Conservation Society)
"The Marine Conservation Society (MCS) is the UK charity dedicated to the protection of our seas, shores and wildlife. MCS campaigns for clean seas and beaches, sustainable fisheries, and protection of marine life. Through education, community involvement and collaboration, MCS raises awareness of the many threats that face our seas and promotes individual, industry and government action to protect the marine environment. Although not widely appreciate the Thames is tidal all the way up to Teddington Lock and hence, coastal; this fact, coupled with our ongoing drive to reduce the amount of dilute untreated sewage entering our coastal waters (which is captured in our combined sewer overflow pollution policy and position statement, a public document which is downloadable from our website www.mcsuk.org) means that we accept and support the fundamental principle of the Thames Tideway Tunnel in intercepting and diverting the 39 million tonnes of human and industrial waste that typically enters the tidal River Thames each year."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Giles & Elizabeth Giles
"In brief, we are not convinced the project is necessary or, even if it is, we believe there are more appropriate locations along the Thames (rather than Putney Bridge) that could have been selected and/or more appropriate (and less intrusive) designs pursued. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Minerva (Wandsworth) Ltd
"Minerva (Wandsworth) Limited ("Minerva") is the landowner of a large site in Wandsworth Town Centre known as the Ram Brewery (the "Site"), part of which is situated within the area where works are proposed for the Frogmore Connection Tunnel (Work No. 7). Minerva has been notified by the applicant that parts of the subsoil of the Site are listed in the Book of Reference (Document Reference 4.3.14) to be compulsorily acquired (Plot numbers 123, 124, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140 and 141). The Site, which extends to some 7.25 acres, has been identified by the London Borough of Wandsworth in its Core Strategy adopted in October 2010 (Policy PL 12) as a key strategic regeneration site in the borough. Minerva has spent a number of years preparing proposals for a regeneration scheme and submitted an application at the end of 2012 (reference numbers 2012/5286, 2012/5290, 2012/5287, 2012/6019, 2012/6020 and 2012/6016) for planning permission, conservation area and listed building consent to deliver 669 new homes, including a 35 storey tower, as well as over 9500 sqm of retail and restaurant uses on the Site. The scheme will preserve many historic buildings on the Site, open up the town centre and River Wandle to the public and result in a significant financial contribution to the London Borough of Wandsworth for the provision of infrastructure in the area. The application is currently scheduled to be heard at committee in July 2013 and, if approved, it is expected that planning permission will be granted by October 2013. The limits of deviation for Work No. 7 indicate that the eastern limit of deviation of the proposed Frogmore Connection Tunnel encroaches (below ground) on to the north-western edge of the Site. Minerva's proposals for this part of the Site include a 35 storey tower, which sits above a large basement, and is fundamental to the deliverability of the scheme. Minerva is concerned about potential impacts of the Tunnel on their proposed development, including: a physical clash with their proposed foundations for the 35 storey tower and basement if the Tunnel is constructed east of its intended centreline but within the eastern limit of deviation; and delay to the Ram Brewery development programme to allow the Tunnel to be constructed. Minerva also has concerns about the impact of the proposed Tunnel on various listed buildings situated on Site - the Grade II* buildings at 1-6 Church Row and the Grade II buildings at 7-9 Church Row. These Church Row buildings are situated within the limits of deviation for Work No. 7 and on the preferred centreline of the Tunnel. Minerva has had preliminary discussions with Thames Water to discuss the implications of the Tunnel on the deliverability of their proposed development of the Site. It is hoped that those discussions will result in an acceptable agreement between the parties that will facilitate the development of both the Tunnel and Ram Brewery site in parallel. However, in the absence of such an agreement at this stage and due to concerns about the impact of the Tunnel on the Church Row listed buildings, Minerva wishes to register as an interested party and to have the opportunity to make further written representations and appear at the preliminary meeting and any open floor and relevant issue specific hearings. Minerva also specifically requests pursuant to section 92 of the Planning Act 2008 that a compulsory acquisition hearing is held in relation to powers of compulsory acquisition being granted in relation to the Project. Issues for the Examination: * Impact of the Tunnel on the delivery of regeneration proposals within Wandsworth Town Centre; * Uncertainty arising out of the potential alignment of the Tunnel within the proposed Limits of Deviation; * Impact on listed structures."
Non-Statutory Organisations
response has attachments
Morgans Walk Management Ltd (Morgans Walk Management Ltd)
"Morgan's Walk is a residential development occupying 4HA with a river frontage of 400m on the opposite side to Cremorne Wharf. The original plan for works at Cremorne Wharf involved a construction projecting into the river. We expressed our concern that this could influence the flow in the river, deflecting it towards our foreshore, which is experiencing slow erosion. The revised plans avoid ANY alteration to the existing river wall at the Wharf. We expressed our satisfaction with this change, and agreement with the intended works at this site. I have now examined the documents now on view at the Institution of Civil Engineers and satisfied myself that these retain all the features on which our agreement was based. We fully support the objectives of the Thames Tideway Tunnel to reduce untreated sewage discharges into the river. Communication and information from Thames Water has been exemplary and we look forward to the implementation of the project. I remain the contact person for Morgan's Walk Management Limited, but (ref Q4.4) only wish to be contacted if there is any change to the plans which could affect water flow in the river."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr H H R Towler
"I feel TW's plans for King Edward Memorial Park (KEMP) will have an unreasonable impact in both the short and the long term on a vital local amenity. There is a viable alternative at Heckford with a much lower expected impact on the overall life of the local community. TW itself has acknowledged that there is little technical difference between KEMP and HEckford, so the brownfield option (Heckford) is surely preferable to working on/impacting one of the only parks in this area, which is both historic and the only one on the riverfront. I urge the Planning Inspectorate in the strongest possible terms to examine the Heckford option and to choose it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eversheds LLP (Eversheds LLP) on behalf of Mr Lee Ranson
"Our client has a leasehold interest in Flat   , Luna House, 37 Bermondsey Wall West, London SE16 4RN (“the Property”). The Property does not lie within the Order Limits but our client has interests in land which will be affected by the works for which development consent is sought. Our client is noted in the Book of Reference for London Borough of Southwark as follows: • Part 2 – in respect of a potential claim under either section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 associated with work number 1c. • Part 3 - in respect of rights to light associated with the proposed development site at Chambers Wharf comprising works numbers 19a and 19b. Article 31 of the DCO seeks the power to override easements and other rights. In order to justify the proposed interference with our client’s proprietary interests, Thames Water Utilities Limited (“TWUL”) must therefore demonstrate that there is a compelling case in the public interest to do so, and must, inter alia, have regard to our client’s right to peaceful enjoyment of the Property. There is insufficient information available to enable our client to assess the precise nature of the likely impact of the Project on his interests, however it is clear from the documents submitted with the DCO application that there will be significant effects on the amenity of residents, including our client, during the construction period. The Design and Access Statement (p491) identifies the Property as a sensitive receptor. The Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary (“ES N-TS”) (section 22 – Chambers Wharf) indicates that the proposed works at Chambers Wharf will require intrusive construction techniques including piling, tunnel boring and excavation. There will be also be significant construction traffic in close proximity to the Property, including transportation barges (on average 3 per day) and HGVs (on average 55 per day). The construction is assumed to start in 2016 but will not complete until 2021 (paragraph 22.2.4), during which time there will be prolonged periods of 24 hour working. Our client requires assurance that TWUL will implement site specific appropriate and satisfactory mitigation measures in respect of the Property, and will facilitate temporary re-housing during the construction period. In the absence of satisfactory mitigation measures, our client does not consider that the proposed interference with his rights is justified and objects in principle to the proposed development. In particular, our client is concerned about the following matters: Noise The ES N-TS (paragraph 22.3.6) indicates that notwithstanding proposed noise control measures, significant adverse noise effects from the construction site are still likely at the Property due to on site construction equipment and river based construction traffic, and that it would not be possible to further reduce the effect at these locations through on site controls. Reference is made to the Thames Tideway Tunnel Noise Insulation and Temporary Re-Housing Policy, but in the absence of any detail about the likely severity of the noise levels at the Property our client is unable to assess the adequacy of the measures identified in this policy and there is no assurance that insulation will satisfactorily mitigate the effects of noise on the Property. Vibration The ES N-TS (paragraph 22.3.7) predicts that there will be significant adverse effects from vibration at the Property in relation to piling. However, until the piling is underway it is not known whether the vibration effects can be adequately mitigated. Reference is made to the potential eligibility for compensation via the Thames Tideway Tunnel Compensation Programme, but compensation cannot adequately mitigate vibration effects that are detrimental to residential amenity and public safety. Rights to Light The Daylight/Sunlight Assessment (paragraph 3.3.1) indicates that there would potentially be an impact on rights to light during construction phase 3, which has an assumed massing of 7m, on those properties at Luna House with windows that face within 90 degrees of south. Paragraph 3.3.5 goes on to say that the only windows at Luna House that do not achieve the guideline figures for daylight and sunlight are on the first floor of Luna House and an alternative proposal for how construction massing “might” be reduced to comply with BRE daylight and sunlight guidelines is referred to. The Property will therefore be affected as it has a number of windows, including all the bedroom windows, which face within 90 degrees of south. It is also situated on the first floor of Luna House where the impacts are expected to be the most severe. Insufficient information is provided with the DCO application to enable our client to assess the extent of the likely impact on rights to light at the Property or the adequacy of the alternative massing proposal which might be adopted. Access It appears that vehicular and pedestrian access to the Property via East Lane and Chambers Street may be impeded during the construction of the Project. In addition, parking for the Property is situated underground on Chambers Street within very close proximity to the existing entrance to the proposed construction site. Schedule 4 to the DCO identifies East Lane and Chambers Street as being subject to street works in accordance with the proposed Article 10 to the DCO. These public highways are also identified for acquisition and/or use during the construction of the proposed works. No explanation is provided in either the Transport Assessment, the Code of Construction Practice or the Design and Access Statement as to how access to the Property, including to the underground parking, will be affected by the works, or how TWUL will ensure that an alternative and equally commodious access will be maintained to the Property throughout the construction period. Furthermore, traffic management plans for the construction phases of the works are yet to be submitted and approved therefore there is insufficient information available to enable our client to assess the potential access implications in the vicinity of the Property. Conclusion Our client does not consider that the information provided with the DCO application is sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed interference with our client’s proprietary rights is for a legitimate purpose, is necessary or proportionate. TWUL have failed to demonstrate that the compulsory purchase powers sought in the DCO sufficiently justify the interference with our client’s human rights, in particular Article 1 to the First Protocol to the Convention and Article 8. It is imperative that consideration is given at an early stage to the detail, extent and timing of the proposed construction works and associated mitigation measures to ensure that our client can continue to safely reside at the Property without detriment to residential amenity. As it seems clear that this is not the case, provision must be made for satisfactory re-housing on a temporary basis. Accordingly, our client requires confirmation from TWUL that: • the impact of the increased noise levels on the Property will be accurately evaluated prior to implementing the proposed works; • the impact of the vibration levels on the Property will be accurately evaluated prior to implementing the proposed works; • the impact of daylight/sunlight at the Property will be accurately evaluated prior to implementing the proposed works; and • vehicular and pedestrian access to the Property, including to the underground parking, will be maintained at all times. If it is not possible to adequately mitigate noise, vibration and/or the impact on daylight/sunlight to an acceptable standard for the residential use of the Property, our client requires confirmation from TWUL that the costs of temporary alternative accommodation in an equally commodious property for the duration of the construction period will be met by TWUL. Our client reserves the right to submit a written representation at the examination stage and/or make oral representations at any open floor hearing, and further reserves the right to add to or amend these representations as necessary. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nadia Rahmatulla
"I live in battersea reach & I want to make sure I won't be affected by this project"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Passam
"I disagree that Chamber Whalf should be used for the supersewer site. I believe that Chambers Wharf is not suitable because it is in a densely populated area with local schools. The noise, dust and traffic will not be acceptable. There are other ways Thames Water could clean up the river and they don't need to use a site in Southwark as one of their main places to drill the tunnel from."
Other Statutory Consultees
Ofwat
"Ofwat (the Water Services Regulation Authority) is the economic regulator of the water and sewerage industry. It is responsible for making sure that water and sewerage sectors in England and Wales provide household and business customers with good quality services and value for money. Ofwat’s statutory duties are set out in the Water Industry Act 1991 (and subsequent amendments) and its primary duties are to protect the interests of consumers, wherever appropriate by promoting competition; ensure that the companies properly carry out their functions (in accordance with their duties and licences); and ensure that the companies can finance their functions. Ofwat’s interest in the Thames Tideway Tunnel relates to ensuring that the tunnel is planned and implemented in an economic and efficient manner to deliver the necessary service improvements and environmental standards compliance. Ofwat’s interest in the DCO is in the above context to support the application and the funding statement that Thames Water has provided. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Leon Jones
"Trafalgar Court is a block of flats, which owns a pier on the Thames. We are informed that the subsoil will be acquired with compensation to residents. A pittance for what we will suffer. My main objection is the use of King Edward VII memorial park sporting and garden facilities as a parking lot and storage bay for loading giant lorries linked to this project. This is turning a greenfield site into a brownfield site. Keep this green, the city needs these lungs. Who will guarantee, it's return as leisure land to Tower Hamlets' residents? Our flats will suffer pollution from noise, light, vibrations and dust for years. Our sleep and rest periods will be disturbed. The value of our properties will suffer. Vehicular and pedestrian access will be affected. The streets will be less safe. The park, adjacent sailing school, tennis courts, bowling green, children's playground, infant school, river walkway are pockets of pleasure in a dense urban landscape. Why ever would anyone want to destroy this and impoverish the lives of local people? Surely, there is a more industrial location for this?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Kellaway
"King Edward Memorial Park is my nearest green space. My principal concerns are: -the aesthetics of the ventilation shaft -the potential increase in air pollution -the loss of an open river vista -the public safety and anti-social behavious impact of large structures in a park (consider 2 stabbings in Wapping Woods in December 2012 where the ventilation shaft obscures the view of pedestrians walking through the park) For the duration of the construction: -the loss of amenity of a public space during construction -the increased journey time for pedestrians travelling between Wapping and Canary Wharf -the increased danger of walking on The Highway with respect of air quality and personal safety -additional issues around site safety if the park was to remain at all open. Each of the above points is re-emphasised by the potential length of disruption of a quoted 3-7 years. I support the need for the tunnel and the sewer, but I believe that the viability of the project given its scale will not be threatened if a brownfield site is used. I challenge the assertion that the park is not a greenfield site. Yes there was a fishmarket there previously, but this was pre WW1. By the same extent, the sites of former trenches of the Somme should be considered to be a brownfield site suitable for development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Save King (Save King)
"The Save King’s Stairs Gardens Action Group was founded in September 2010 to oppose Thames Water’s original (Phase 1 consultation) proposals to construct a main tunnel with an intermediate/reception shaft in the northern half of King’s Stairs Gardens on the Southwark riverside. SaveKSG opposed this proposal on the basis that a public open space used by many thousands of local residents and visitors should not become a construction site. King’s Stairs Gardens is Metropolitan Open Land; a rare riverside park in central London; a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and home to many wildlife species as well as more than 500 mature, protected trees; part of the National Cycle Network, Jubilee Greenway and Thames Path; and now also Rotherhithe’s Village Green, a Queen Elizabeth II Field and part of Edward III’s Rotherhithe Conservation Area. Our campaign is supported by over 7,500 petition signatories, all elected members of Southwark Council from all political parties, our Member of Parliament the Right Honourable Simon Hughes and our London Assembly Member Valerie Shawcross CBE and many local organisations and businesses. We appreciate that King’s Stairs Gardens is not included in this Draft Development Consent Order, as Thames Water has identified and now prefers, controversially, the nearby brownfield site at Chambers Wharf. However Thames Water has made clear to SaveKSG that King’s Stairs Gardens remains firmly shortlisted as their back-up option (Application Document 5.1, Consultation Report Section 27: Chambers Wharf, paragraph 27.4.1). The current application proposes Chambers Wharf (and by implication, King’s Stairs Gardens as a potential alternative) as a construction site for a main tunnel drive shaft toward Abbey Mills. This revised drive direction would, according to site plans we have seen, mean using the whole of King’s Stairs Gardens, destroying it completely. There has never been any public consultation on those plans. We therefore ask that the Inspectorate recommends any further change of construction site be subject to a new round of public consultation, a new application to the Inspectorate and a new ministerial decision. We further believe that Thames Water’s submitted proposals for other local greenfield sites in Shadwell and Deptford are not environmentally sound. We are aware of growing doubts about the full tunnel proposal on environmental grounds and concern about the costs of the project and how it will be funded. We seriously doubt that the current proposal is in the best interests of Thames Water customers and the taxpayer and will not prove good value for money. It is vital that any decision is evidence-based. Much evidence has accrued about the cost-effectiveness of the full tunnel versus alternative solutions. Experiences elsewhere in the world (particularly the USA) of both tunnelling and alternative, greener strategies, as well as of financing such projects, have not in our view been fully explored. We therefore believe that consent should not be granted for the current application. We urge that a fully independent panel should be set up to review all options and make recommendations based on all currently available evidence. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Roberts-Mee
"I have three concerns: 1. That there are more effective, more sustainable, less carbon-intensive alternatives, with a longer lifespan than the tunnel. I have a background in environmental science, including spells at Defra. 2. That the sewer will not prevent all discharges into the Thames, to the continuing detriment of those of us further down the river. Thames Water confirm that there will still be discharges, and I know the effect even small amounts of raw sewage can have on vulnerable industries like shell-fishing. 3. The Government plans to guarantee the project, without knowing how much it will cost. I also have a background in finance, especially credit guarantees."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Stockhurst Close Residents Association (Stockhurst Close Residents Association)
"I am a resident of Stockhurst close and am registering the interest for the entire Stockhurst Close Residents Association (SCRA). SCRA represents the interest of all residents within Stockhurst Close. Our immediate concern with the application is the close proximity (line of sight) of Stockhurst Close to the proposed Barn Elms construction site. We are anxious about the disruptions, noise and other pollution that comes with such a construction. Stockhurst Close and our properties are very close to the Barn Elms construction site and we are extremely concerned that the work there are likely to cause a material adverse effect to our rights to peaceful enjoyment of our properties. Our main concerns are: (1) The significant disruption in terms of noise and light pollution from the works. (2) The increased traffic in the area (together with related noise and disruption). (3) Potential damage to our properties, for example from vibrations and/or subsidence caused by the intended works. We have additional concerns regarding the potential odours during and after the works and are keen to receive proper reassurance that appropriate steps will be taken to mitigate any and all unpleasant odours. Finally, in addition to the above, we also have legitimate concerns regarding the current and future rental value and re-sale value of our properties in the event that we were to decide to let it to tenants or sell the lease on to one or more purchasers. We wish to be kept fully informed of the intended works at Barn Elms, and to have the right to be present and speak at meetings (and to make further written representations if we choose to do so). We as SCRA would like to ensure that our concerns are heard and taken into account. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Lawes
"My area is being constantly bombarded by construction traffic as new developments are built around us. The dust, noise and pollution from construction traffic created by Thames Water using the site on Deptford Church Street is unneccessary when the previously preferred site was Borthwick Wharf where spoil could be removed by river. The proposal to use the Deptford Church Street site is unacceptable."
Non-Statutory Organisations
TCG Bars Ltd
"Our client, TCG Bars Ltd, owns and operates the Tattershall Castle, a bar and restaurant on a vessel moored at Victoria Embankment. The current proposals will mean that the vessel cannot remain in its existing location either during construction or following completion of the works. The nature of our client’s business (which we are advised employs between 20 and 40 members of staff, depending on the season) is such that it is very sensitive to its location. The relocation of the vessel anywhere other than within the immediate proximity of its existing location would potentially mean the extinguishment of the business. In addition a relocation is likely to be highly problematic, in that it would require the cooperation and consent of a number of parties including Westminster City Council (whose policy is to restrict moorings except in exceptional circumstances), the Port of London Authority and the Crown Estate. Given the vulnerability of the business, in our responses to Thames Water’s phase 2 consultation and further targeted consultation on sites including the Victoria Embankment Foreshore we requested that: (1) Thames Water considered whether there was an alternative location for the works currently proposed at this site; and that (2) if there was not, Thames Water did all that it reasonably could to pave the way with the necessary parties, for the relocation of the existing mooring to a suitable alternative location and included within the Development Consent Order a replacement mooring at a suitable alternative site within the immediate vicinity of the existing location. The DCO proposes a temporary relocation to a mooring broadly in line with Horseguards Avenue, followed by a permanent relocation to a site nearer to the existing location once the construction works are complete. The option included within the DCO is the preferred option of those considered in the most recent consultation document, as the location was considered to be more suitable, with a better view from Victoria Embankment. Accordingly the impact on trade and risk to the future of the business was considered likely to be less than the alternative proposed. However our client's clear preference is that the Tattershall Castle remains in its existing location as any relocation will result in significant disruption to the business. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Thames Clippers (Thames Clippers)
"Thames Clippers operate a fast and frequent river bus service on six routes ranging from Putney in West London to Woolwich in East London. Currently Blackfriars Pier is used on 3 routes,RB1, RB2 and RB6 and these services call in here at total of 90 times a day with more than 150,000 passengers either boarding or alighting here annually. It is important that the pier is able to support this level of frequency and meets the requirements of our mooring systems. The proposed pier arrangement (drawing DCO-PP-17X-BLABF-190046) does not meet this requirement, in particular the fendered pile on the eastern end of the pier is unsuitable for our operation. We are content with the proposed position for the relocated pier and we note that this new location has an issue with the proximity to inward bound barge traffic using the Number 2 arch at Blackfriars Bridges. However, the proposed mitigation against the risks posed, i.e. the use of a fendered mono pile at the eastern end of the pile is not suitable to allow the vessel to moor efficiently and safely during a flood tide. We have an established mooring procedure, approved by the flag administration, where we use one rope to moor the vessel on service calls. The boat is typically alongside for around one minute, dependant on the number passengers to discharge and load. We carry out around 400,000 such operations each year, all to essentially the same procedure. Thames Clippers vessels moor the same way around, irrespective of the tide so an inward bound vessel will always moor with head up the river and an outward bound vessel will always moor with head down the river. With a flood tide an inward bound vessel will moor stern to tide using a stern line. An outward bound vessel on a similar tide will moor head to tide with a forespring. The vessel in both instances uses minimum power on one engine to hold the craft alongside the pier in the correct position. The proposed arrangement on the eastern end of the pier during a flood tide would require us to moor with rope to the pile, align the gangway on the opposite end of the vessel and use a further rope adjacent to the gangway. There is no ability to use a second rope at the up-tide end which would be required to help secure the vessel. In addition, the pile would be positioned to suit one class of vessel but would not be suitable for the other vessels in our fleet. It is important that our mooring procedure is strictly observed in order to maintain a safe and timely transfer of passengers and we require a pier that is suitably designed to meet these requirements. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Kent Environment and Community Network (The Kent Environment and Community Network)
"The Kent Environment & Community Network – was set up in 2008 as a response to significant weaknesses in the planning system – specifically, its failure to provide adequate protection for the environment. KECN is a campaigning organization which is challenging this environmental deficit and supporting local communities in Kent and elsewhere in the quest for environmental justice. KECN has been helping to raise awareness to the significant adverse impacts that the TTT proposal will have on the environment since we first became aware of the proposal in late 2011. Our key submission is that the adverse social and economic costs of the proposal far outweigh the benefit of removing most (but not all) of the 18 million cm of rainwater mixed with c.10% sewage from the Thames by 2023 at earliest. Whereas, the immediate cost benefits of implementing Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) for CSO problems has been proven to be 4 times greater than the monolith tunnel approach.IWRM would immediately address sewage, drought, flooding, climate change, air pollution, dwindling biodiversity, increase local jobs and well-being. See http://vimeo.com/17306371 for a 3 minute video of benefits of IWRM in Philadelphia USA. IWRM will not be implemented in London if the TTT goes ahead. The huge on going cost of the TTT will see to that. We have not been consulted on IWRM. The Government has not considered IWRM and the public are being denied any real opportunity in progressing IWRM for London even through this process with the NPS for Waste Water that establishes 'need' for the TTT. This is contrary to natural justice and new European policy promoting IWRM. The process from the outset of this process has not been fair to the public. The consultation process was utterly inadequate. KECN helped to draft the objection submitted by Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council because this was the only way KECN could participate at that important stage. Despite the fact that objections to the TTT in part or in total were received from what arguably could be considered, a representation from c.1.5 million people, the application was surprisingly accepted. We believe it should have been refused at this stage so that a proper, comprehensive, thorough and fact supported consultation could be undertaken again, this time to include all those outside the 'relevant' local authority areas but who would be subject to the projected 25% increase in water bills for the next 120 years! A consultation can only be called a consultation if it allows effective public participation when all the options are still open. This must include alternatives to the tunnel proposal with sufficient environmental information and cost benefits on all the possible options. This was not provided. KECN with others sought legal advice at acceptance stage to ascertain whether judicial review of the decision to accept the application was possible but were advised that the hurdle of s.118 and s.13 of the Planning Act 2008 would be almost impossible to overcome. We are therefore being forced to continue along this time consuming and expensive process only to have launch legal proceedings again in c.16 months time when the legal and political hurdles shall likely be far greater. To sum up our profound unease with the TTT and to further emphasis why this project must be rejected, we quote Dr Mark Maimone Vice President of CDM Smith, responsible for IWRM for Philadelphia and the paradigm shift in US policy in June 2012 over to IWRM and away from outdated tunnel solutions. December 2012 'Interestingly the scale of London’s discharges are actually relatively small if compared to many US cities, though no doubt a contributor to water quality problems. It is understood that the Lee tunnel and treatment works upgrades will halve this problem, leaving an even smaller annual total CSO volume. But here is the crux of the problem everyone is having with the Tunnel. What specific circumstances are we talking about that dictate a tunnel exactly? Space? Geology? Rainfall patterns? Policy? Financing? The inadequate information provided gives only superficial discussion of these obstacles. When a 4 billion pound solution to a CSO problem is proposed, one could at least expect a thorough study of the water quality in the Thames, and analysis and priortisation of the water quality problems, an identification of all sources of pollutions, and then open negotiations on the best total solution to improving the aquatic environment of the river. Instead, there appears to be a single purpose of CSO elimination, at a very high cost, with no consideration to the benefit side of the equation that other solutions might provide. Not an acceptable level of analysis for such a significant project'.   "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tony Barry
"own property at   - concerned about collateral damage"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tuikku Alaviitala
"I oppose digging up the King Edward Memorial Park as it is the only green space right on the river providing good views in the river front, green space for relaxation and excellent tennis courts and football pitch for sports."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vanessa Cecillon
"My flat is directly overlooking the building site. I expect a high level of nuisance: noise, dust, traffic, visual pollution and light at night. Please note that I suffer from allergies and respiratory problems. I will have to incur additional cleaning expenses, vacuum on a daily basis, hire a window cleaner, improve windows insulation, install air conditioning in the summer since it won't be bearable to open the windows. The drilling of the tunnel may affect the structure of the building, which mean a significant financial loss in case of damage or repairs. I expect the price of the insurance and therefore the service charge to increase. If Thames Water propose to relocate people, the building will become empty. In this case I don't expect the building manager to keep maintaining it and therefore the building will become totally derelict. How will we be compensated for the nuisance we will suffer during 4 years 24/24 7/7 ?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Lewis
"I agree with the application but the concern is about damge to property as a result of any works"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alessio Pecorella
"Cause more pollution to the river, foul smell, and bring down value to surrounding developments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ana Williams
"I live next to Chambers Wharf where one of the drive sites for the tunnel is proposed. Should it go ahead I will face 7 years of misery, including 24/7 construction with the associated noise and dust, and on an unprecedented level; in other words nothing like this has been done before. That Thames Water is already considering relocating residents for 3 years is testament to this. This 'super sewer' will ruin the lives of thousands of local residents and school children in an area that just isn't suitable for a project of this scale and the thousands of proposed lorry movements per day. Thames Water did also admit that it would be possible in theory to avoid the site altogether by using Abbey Mills as the drive site instead. The threat of this construction has already impacted on my daily life and regularly keeps me awake at night. In fact recently the Thames Water generator on site failed and kept everyone in the close vicinity up all night, myself included and affected my work the following day. Sadly this is not even a small part of what is to come. I am also asthmatic and have real concerns of what affect the dust will have on my breathing, not to mention the schoolchildren nearby. I am concerned about how I will be able to go to work every day if I am to suffer sleep deprivation and health issues. Moreover, the property I have worked very hard to afford will be made worthless if this construction goes ahead; it is already virtually unsellable with just the threat of a sewer. I have lived in this historic and diverse area that I consider my home for over 6 years, and I am concerned that the Thames tunnel will irrevocably ruin the area for generations to come. The Chambers Wharf site is simply not a viable site on any level due to the size of the plot and the close proximity to housing and schools. I can only urge the Inspectorate to please reconsider the proposed route and look at alternatives to Chambers Wharf and other highly residential sites, to a route that would significantly reduce the overall impact. The most galling thing about this is Thames Water have time and again tried to compare the tunnel to the pioneering original London sewer design by engineer Bazalgette, despite the fact the proposed solution isn't a solution at all, only treating 34 out of 57 combined sewer overflows. Using over 4 billion of what is effectively public money on a half measure is just plain crazy. Though Thames Water has done its design more than 150 years later, it has not even considered using tunnel boring machines to better affect to avoid highly residential areas. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Dacey
"I will update after registration is complete"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Edgar
"As a resident immediately adjacent to Chambers Wharf, I object to the use of it as a main drive shaft site for the reasons set out below. I accept that measures have to be undertaken to deal with the excess rain water/sewage, but not in the way Thames Water (“TW”) is proposing. • It would be in a highly dense populated residential area • The site is too small, as is evident by the necessity of building a coffer dam 45-50 metres into the Thames • 3 schools are within 50-200 metres of the site, including Riverside Primary School and St. Michael’s Roman Catholic Secondary School. It is the Riverside Primary School, the pupils, teachers, staff and parents which will be most adversely affected, being not more than 50 metres from the site. This school (as will other schools and residents) will be subject over a period of at least 10+ years to wholly unacceptable noise, vibrations, environmental pollution (dust and light) and health and safety hazards. 3 generations of children will therefore be exposed these hazards not only for the 11 years but for 3 of them on a 24/7 basis. • TW has estimated that up to 90 lorry movements will be required and these will inevitably have to pass by the Riverside Primary School gates on a daily basis. This will add to the increase in potential danger to the pupils, parents and staff, as well as any environmental issues which will arise. Furthermore the use of Jamaica Road, already at full capacity, can only result in a detrimental effect on the local community and access to the City. • The proposed works, working hours and their environmental and health and safety impact are wholly unacceptable to adults and children in the area and are in contravention to our own laws, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights and Act. • The project will inevitably divide the local community in a physical sense and halt the regeneration project which to date has been such a success in Bermondsey and Southwark. • Given all these reasons it is difficult to see why TW should not use their own land at Abbey Mills as the main drive shaft site (even if one accepts this is the correct solution, which I do not) and to deal with their supposed difficulty of different ground conditions, by using hybrid tunnel boring machines as used very successfully, for example, for the Tokyo underground. After all, Abbey Mills and then King’s Stairs were both suggested by TW as appropriate sites before they proposed Chambers Wharf. The health, safety and general well being of children and adults have been completely been ignored contrary to all legal and moral mores. For these reasons, as well as the cost to TW customers which are bound to increase to possibly twice the current estimate to nearer £9-10 billion, the proposed scheme and particularly the use of Chambers Wharf, should be rejected. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Gwynn
"I walk my dog in King Edward Memorial Park. I often run through it too. It's a thoroughly pleasent spot of green in an otherwise built up area. There's a memorial in the park which often catches my eye. But it's the other people enjoying this rare area of green that really catches the eye. I'm white, they're often of Eastern origin. It feels like the only time we mix. Its a place for the community. Why we should lose what was given to the people to enjoy when there are seemingly perfectly feasible alternatives with a far smaller impact is beyond me. Please seek a better alternative. Andrew"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Swords
"Noise, pollution, disruption to a residential area near Chambers Wharf that will affect residents and schools 24 hours a day building operation at Chambers Wharf – no respite No tender process followed only Thames Waters preferred option on the table Alternatives not taken into account that would be greener, more effective and cheaper Paid for by the tax payer and handed over to Thames Water as a revenue generator Increased water rates - permanantly Alternative sites not duly considered that would have less impact on local communities Finance not in place and the costs are already escalating Scale and nature of the Planning Inspectorate panel not appropriate GI would be a preferred solution and has already proven successful and sustainable Proposed solution is finite with no room for expansion in the future "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Lane
"."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Wainwright
"I wish to register my objections to the above proposal as I LIVE ON THE RIVER THAMES ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE RIVER TO THE PROPOSED RIVER WORKS. If you need a fuller statement I would be happy to provide this at a later date."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Lionel Blackman
"Clearly the Panel has to consider the social, financial and environmental effects of constructing the sewr tunnel and it is considered that the total impact of the project will be extremely detrimental to both businesses and the local community. London traffic is already highly congested and the extra traffic trying to move vast tons of subsoil to Kent while building the tunnel will be totally unacceptable as well as damaging and polluting the environment. Thames Water originally undertook to move the subsoil by boat but it is now understood that the firm that will actually be doing the work proposes to use lorries to transfer the waste soil to Kent. Since the original concept of the Thames sewer tunnel was accepted it has become clear that there are other and more up to date ways of meeting the environmental requirement to avoid sewage entering the Thames, as evidenced by the solution adopted by Philadelpia to keep the River Delaware unpolluted. While weighing up the effects of turning down the planning application the Panel must take this alternative into account since, apart from other considerations, London as one of the leading cities in the world needs to be seen to be using 21st Century rather than almost outdated Victorian technology. In summary the Panel should turn down the planning application since there is now at least one viable way of solving the problem without inflicting unnecessary social and financial hardship on the local communities for miles around as well as damaging the environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
B G Bushell
"Notification from the managing agents regarding this property and require further information"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barney Holbeche
"I live in Axis Court, adjacent to the proposed major construction site for the Thames Tideway Tunnel at Chambers Wharf. I have had the opportunity to meet Thames Water officials on numerous occasions, and have read the most relevant parts of the DCO documents. It is my view that TW has done the bare minimum to comply with their statutory duties to consult persons affected by the project, and whilst going through the motions of hearing representations have not actually listened, and have largely rejected or ignored views put to them: after Phase Two consultation TW made some minor adjustments to their proposals but nothing major for the whole scheme. TW promised more detailed information to our local politicians but then failed to keep their promises. This unacceptable behaviour by a monopoly undertaker with statutory powers smacks of arrogance and is indicative of a determination by TW to put project success above anything or anybody else regardless of how persons are affected. I understand the rationale for the fast track major infrastructure system, and support cleaning up the Thames. However I have severe doubts that this is the correct or best value scheme for doing so. Unless the examination of this DCO is seen to be searching and thorough, with flexibility shown by the panel to use the procedures to give adequate consideration to alternative ways of delivering the project which would reduce overall impact on persons affected then the system will have failed and the promoters could have secured consent inappropriately. In short with an application of this scale and complexity, with huge financial implications for TW’s customers and all taxpayers, the system for examining the DCO is itself on trial. I hope to see rigour and fairness in the examination, and courage by the panel to challenge conventional wisdoms and the might of corporate power which seems to think it is entitled to an inside track with government. With regard to Chambers Wharf, if it were to be used at all, it should be a reception only site to reduce the intolerable impact on local residents of being a main tunnel drive site. TW’s impact assessments are carefully presented to mask the high level of intrusion which they clearly anticipate. The mitigation and compensation procedures offered set a standard which hardly any claimant can achieve, and are little more than a cynical fix by the promoter. TW’s bid to suspend citizens’ long-established rights under the Environmental Protection Act to sue them for noise nuisance is a disgraceful affront to Londoners. What TW is proposing for Chambers Wharf must be painstakingly tested by the examination in terms of actual likely impact in practice compared to what TW claims it will be, and if consent were to be granted it should be subject to a range of specific conditions forcing TW, its contractors and/or the Infrastructure Provider to adopt much more effective measures to protect local residents and businesses than is currently proposed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barrie Dunn
"In order to retain full rights to get information about settlement risks, receive compensation in he event of a mishap etc i am registering as an "interested party""
Non-Statutory Organisations
SJ Berwin (SJ Berwin) on behalf of Battersea Project Land Company Limited
"1. The redevelopment of Battersea Power Station represents a development project of regional importance for London and will be the town centre for the Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Area. Battersea Power Station is also the site of the proposed Battersea Power Station Tube Station, forming part of the Northern Line Extension that is currently being promoted by Transport for London. 2. Battersea Power Station therefore sits at the heart of three important development proposals (Thames Tideway Tunnel, Northern Line Extension and the long awaited development of Battersea Power Station itself). It also forms the focal point of the Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Area. These proposals/projects are, subject to TTT and the NLE receiving the necessary approvals, currently scheduled to be constructed at the same time. 3. Given the extent of the construction activity proposed in and around Battersea Power Station, the impacts of the TTT on the delivery of the Battersea Power Station development are potentially significant, and are not capable of being adequately addressed by way of the payment of compensation. 4. The TTT scheme as shown on drawing DCO-PP-13X-KRTST-150012 of the submitted plans requires: • The temporary possession of a site known as 88 Kirtling Street which has planning consent for the development of 218,282 sq ft GEA of residential development (forming what is known as phase 7 of the Battersea Power Station development) and; • The temporary possession of sites known as 28 Kirtling Street, 8 Brooks Court and 2 Battersea Park Road which (save 8 Brooks Court) have planning consent for the development of 140,319 sq ft GEA of residential development (forming what is known as phase 5 of the Battersea Power Station development) and are intended, in aggregate, to form a site for the development of affordable housing. 5. The sites affected by TTT in the ownership of Battersea Project Land Company Limited (“BPLCL”) are shown (appropriately annotated) on the plan attached to these representations. 6. Possession of the sites in the manner sought in the Order will have implications for the timely and effective delivery of the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station development project (given physical and planning constraints relating to the phasing of the Battersea Power Station development) and for wider development and regeneration initiatives in the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area (including the proposed Northern Line Extension) in terms of: (a) the TTT’s effects, without proper mitigation being guaranteed, upon the completed Battersea Power Station development, for instance in relation to noise, air quality, visual impact and traffic; (b) unresolved issues as to construction management interfaces between the Battersea Power Station, TTT and Northern Line Extension projects; (c) the impact of the TTT on the development and delivery of development on the main Battersea Power Station site as well as the Phase 5 and Phase 7 sites. 7. The application also includes provisions for to redevelop what is known as the CEMEX concrete batching plant (which is shown and annotated on the attached plan). The proposed layout of the CEMEX site is shown on drawing DCO-PP-13X-KRTST-150007 and requires the permanent relocation of existing plant and storage silos, tanks and bins from the north of the CEMEX site to the south, in order to facilitate the construction of the main tunnel shaft. The scale and location of these permanent installations (which are considerably greater in both scale and impact than the plant that is being replaced – as shown on drawing DCO-PP-13X-KRTST-150010) is a cause of concern to BPLCL given the intended uses (which have the benefit of planning consent) for that part of the Battersea Power Station development and which sit immediately adjacent to the boundary of the CEMEX site. 8. Thames Water has not demonstrated that the site is required in connection with the TTT project, whether in its entirety or in relation to any part. We challenge the robustness of the site selection process undertaken and relied upon by Thames Water and put Thames Water to proof that the combination of sites it states are required for the Kirtling Street works site are the most appropriate combination given (i) the availability of other potential works sites in the area and (ii) Thames Water’s ownership of Heathwall Pumping Station. 9. Even if Thames Water is able to demonstrate that the proposed works site is the only suitable location for a works site in the vicinity of Heathwall Pumping Station, BPLCL question whether all of the land included within the Order is required given that 28 Kirtling Street, 8 Brooks Court and 2 Battersea Park Road are not required for use as a construction site per se, rather are allocated for use as a “Site Power Structure”, part of an “Access/Haul Route” and for “Site Offices/Welfare” uses respectively. 10. Given the complexities attaching to the delivery of the Battersea Power Station development project and the impact that the TTT could have on the project as a whole, we also do not accept the appropriateness of temporary possession, given the potentially lengthy time that the site is to be taken and the work that is to be carried out on the site whilst Thames Water is in possession. 11. BPLCL is in discussion with Thames Water in relation to the potential means by which the impacts of the TTT on the development of Battersea Power Station and the Northern Line Extension may be mitigated, In the event that an appropriate mitigation strategy cannot be agreed, BPLCL will submit evidence to the Examination outlining the potential implications of TTT on the Battersea Power Station development in more detail. 12. Issues for the Examination: • Site selection; • Potential impact(s) of TTT on the development of the Northern Line Extension; • Potential impact(s) of the TTT on the delivery of the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area; • Potential impact(s) of the TTT on the delivery of the Battersea Power Station development project; • Requirement for possession of all of the land identified in the Order; • The appropriateness of the permanent works proposed in respect of the CEMEX site. • Appropriateness of temporary occupation. NB THE PLAN REFERRED TO AS ATTACHED IS BEING SENT UNDER SEPARATE COVER"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Cemex UK Operations Limited
"1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 CEMEX was founded in 1906 and is now a global building solutions company and leading supplier of cement, ready-mixed concrete and aggregates. In the UK, CEMEX also provides asphalt, flooring solutions, concrete block and railway sleepers, bespoke pre-cast and concrete blocks. 1.2 CEMEX has grown from a small local company into one of the top global companies in the world. Following a number of successful acquisitions, CEMEX now has more than 40,000 employees worldwide and has a turnover of around US $15 billion. In the UK, CEMEX generates around £775 million in annual sales. 1.3 CEMEX is the market leader in ready mixed concrete and a leading supplier of mortars and screeds and operates a comprehensive national supply network to ensure that quality materials and services are available to customers locally. Nationwide the company operates over 230 concrete mixing plants to ensure efficient delivery to virtually any location in the UK. 1.4 With 63 quarries and a fleet of modern vessels supplying marine aggregates, CEMEX is a major provider of crushed rock, sand and gravel for a wide range of construction applications. 1.5 CEMEX offers a complete range of market-leading concrete mixes designed to meet every application. 2. REPRESENTATIONS 2.1 Having regard to the above the Cemex facility at the Cringle Wharf site Kirtling Street Wandsworth plays an extremely important part of the company's ability to serve its clients in London. The facility at Cringle Wharf and its capacity would be irreplaceable if extinguished or reduced. 2.2 The wharf itself plays an important role in receiving deliveries of aggregate to the site. 2.3 The requirement for the proposed works at plots 233, 234, 234a, 237, 237a, 237b, 240, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 259, 270 and 272 should therefore be examined to justify their need in terms of location and scale and proposed permanent or temporary land take and unrestricted or temporary powers of use of land and the timing and certainty or otherwise of their proposed implementation. 2.4 The ability to maintain levels of production and supply by the Cringle Wharf site to its current and future market is essential to Cemex and the London economy and the application does not ensure the continued operational capability of Cemex and curtails future development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Hallett
"Site is in a primarily residential area, unsuitable for such long term and large scale construction site. The highways in the area are already under significant traffic pressure from current use, large scale residential development at Chelsea and Imperial Wharfs and regular football matches at Stanford Bridge. Proposed site is earmarked for significant residential development - there is a local and national shortage of housing, the project would prohibit a considerable number of residential units from being built for the foreseeable future and potential for ever due to the depth and size of the remaining drill shaft hole. The environmental impact is unacceptable given close proximity to residential buildings, schools and sheltered housing. The entire super sewer project is no longer supported by numerous independent reviews and professional opinions, it should be completely reviewed and alternative schemes considered which will be far more cost effect, cause far less disruption across London and be far more effective in combating the sewage overflow problems. Better alternative sites are available where impact on the residential populations would be significantly reduced. Perfectly acceptable alternative is to use an area at Barnes Elms, as in Southern Waters on words this is a temporary facility so in longer run no loss of recreational land as can be put back to that use post construction finishing. Virtual no impact on residential areas for the Barnes Elms site. Carnwarth Rd is narrow and completely unsuitable for 24hr movement of HGV vehicles. It's junction with Wandsworth Bridge Rd is regularly backed up with queuing traffic currently and this would create an unacceptable detriment to the highway. The junction is also unsuitable and dangerous for HGV vehicles to be using - there are already traffic calming bollards in surrounding roads to stop such vehicles accessing these "pinch" points proving there are already existing highways issues."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher David Perry
"I am registering as an interested party solely because I have been advised to do so by the managing agents of a block of flats. I own one of the flats in the block. I do not wish to make a representation. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Circadian Limited
"1. These representations are submitted on behalf of Circadian Limited, a Hutchison Whampoa Group Company, and owner of the Lots Road Power Station site (“LRPS”) which lies immediately adjacent to Cremorne Wharf Depot. Cremorne Wharf Depot is the proposed location for a combined sewer overflow within the TTT development consent order application. 2. The LRPS site was granted planning permission in 2006 for a significant high quality mixed use development to include over 800 residential units, as well as retail, business, community and healthcare uses, and high quality public realm. The planning permissions for the development have been implemented with works commencing on site in December 2012. 3. Circadian Limited submitted representations in response to both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 consultations for the TTT. Whilst the proposals for Cremorne Wharf Depot have been amended as a consequence of the consultation process Circadian Limited remains concerned about the proposed CSO site and objects on the following bases: 3.1. Site selection: despite Circadian's previous representations on this issue no new evidence has been put forward to explain and justify the selection of the Cremorne Wharf Depot in light of Thames Water’s own selection criteria, in particular the criterion to exclude sites in highly concentrated residential areas. The area surrounding Cremorne Wharf Depot comprises in the main existing or consented high density residential development. 3.2. Heritage and conservation: in particular inadequate regard has been had to all appropriate nearby conservation areas in assessing the suitability of the site and any proposed structures on it. 3.3. Uncertainty of future use of the Cremorne Wharf Depot site after completion of TTT construction: the implications of this are significant. Drawings showing a replacement depot building included within the application documentation are labelled as illustrative only so it is unclear what is to be consented within the application for post-construction. The extremely wide parameters for the design of any above ground structures on the site make it almost impossible to fully understand and assess the proposals and their potential impact. 3.4. Design of replacement building and on site structures: although illustrative only, the proposed design of the replacement depot building is inappropriate given its location. This includes the setting of the immediately adjacent grade II listed Lots Road Pumping Station and the high quality design of the LRPS development (currently under construction), the appearance of both of which will be significantly adversely impacted. 3.5. Impact on residential amenity : in particular Circadian remains concerned regarding air quality, odours, airborne and groundborne noise and vibration, and other emissions, due to the close proximity of the area of construction and the proposed ventilation shafts in the operational CSO, to the LRPS development. (The environmental statement submitted with the TTT application is clear that there will be significant adverse noise impact on LRPS residents during the construction phase.) 3.6. Potential settlement effects : Circadian is concerned about the potential settlement effects due the construction of the Cremorne Wharf Depot proposals, particularly given the proximity of the proposed area of construction and the depth of the below ground works and structures to the LRPS. 4. There is a significant amount of information and documentation included in the TTT application submission. Circadian Limited therefore reserves the right to add or amend to this list on further review of the documents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Morris
"It is unnecessarily taking away a key amenity for a prolonged period of time when a better and less disruptive alternative is readily available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Computer Warehouse Ltd. (Computer Warehouse Ltd.)
"-"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Crown River Cruises Limited
"Crown River Cruises Ltd do not object to the developer's proposals provided they are fully compensate under all headings for any costs, expenses, or losses which they incur as a result of the proposed development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Ernest Brown
"I am a Lease holder and am conerned teh works may affect my apartment or the river wall for which I am partly responsible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David J Powell
"Possible risk of consequential damage in the event of tunnelling problems, especially settling/subsidence."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Desmond Gilroy
"There are better sites that cause less damage to people and their property and are more economically viable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dessislava Petkova
"I disagree with the use of King Edward Memorial Park as a construction site. It is the only large green space in Limehouse and would be seriously impacted by the construction site - not to mention the noise and dust that comes with it. It must be possible to use one of the disused sites/houses at other parts of the waterfront or to move the construction site fully into the water with just a bridge connecting the construction site and the park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eleanor Edgar
"Thames tunnel construction While there is no doubt that a solution is needed to deal with the sewage overflow into the river, the tunnel will not solve this. Other systems are feasible with proven track records but Thames Water seem to dismiss them and there has been very little investment by them into researching different more cost-effective methods. By the time the tunnel is built, the cost will have doubled and is to be paid for by Thames Water customers. One of the main drive shafts is to be at Chambers Wharf in Bermondsey. This is an area where there has been a welcome and successful regeneration over the past decade, still to be completed. If this project goes ahead, this regeneration will be severely jeopardised for the next decade. The Chambers Wharf site is surrounded by residential properties and schools and is plainly not large enough for such a huge construction as demonstrated by the need to extend it in the form of a coffer dam out into the Thames. The properties are within meters of the project and residents will be subjected to 7-8 years of construction (3 of which will be 24/7 construction) followed by a further 4 years when the original apartments will then be built, therefore 11 years in total which is unacceptable for any resident. Noise, vibration and pollution will be at unacceptable levels. It is also hugely detrimental to the 3 schools in the area, particularly Riverside Primary School which is within 100 meters of the main drive shaft. There will be 3 generations of school children who will have their schooling alongside a huge construction site, many health and safety issues (e.g approx 90 lorry movements/day directly past the school) When the project was first proposed in 2005, the tunnel was to be driven from Abbey Mills which is owned by Thames Water. This site has the advantage of being away from residential areas with more than adequate space for the construction in contrast to Chambers Wharf. Thames Water seem determined now not to use it. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Environment Agency (Environment Agency)
"Representation being sent by email. http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/EA-Relevant-Representations-TTT-240513.pdf Please note: if this link does not open automatically, please copy and paste it to your browser."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Flora McLean
"I disagree with Thames Water's arguments as to why they have been compelled to proceed with Carnwath Road. They are incorrect when they claim they are required to use Carnwath Road on the basis that Barn Elms (being MOL) cannot be used if there is a viable alternative. The planning restriction on which they are relying for this argument is one imposed by LB of Richmond. The requirements imposed by LB of Richmond's policies should only be analysed within the confines of the LB of Richmond's perimeter. If that is the case then the argument is that Barn Elms should only not be used if there are no alternative locations available within the LB of Richmond. Carnwath Road is not relevant for consideration in the context of this policy. If there are no alternative locations available within the LB of Richmond, Barn Elms is still available for consideration. Regardless of the arguments above, I strongly disagree with siting a main bore hole off Carnwath Road - this is a densely populated residential area with social housing opposite the proposed site, many schools (including a primary school within 50 metres of the proposed site). It will destroy this community and affect the health of those people (including many young people) who live in the area. I do not believe the consultation process was fair - Fulham was introduced as a possible site at a very late stage and not given the same time as other proposed sites to respond to the consultations. In spite of this, in the short time available, it became clear that there is strong and sensible local objection. I strongly disagree with the Thames Tunnel project - believing it to be an unnecessarily expensive way to make the Thames cleaner. There are more efficient and less costly solutions which have not been explored. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gavin Charles Alexander Campbell
"General Statement The objectors do not oppose the construction of the tunnel in principle. The objectors support the overall objective of reducing the discharge of raw sewage into the River Thames. However, it is the view of the objectors that the scheme should not proceed in its present form. Objection-The Line of the Tunnel The line of the tunnel should be moved a few metres to the east to minimise the effect on private property rights caused by the necessary compulsory purchase of land. The plans accompanying the application indicate that: (i) The order limit and tunnel limit of deviation will pass under the rear wall of   ('the property') and (ii) The tunnel will be substantially (about 75%) constructed under the rear garden of the property To build the tunnel on this line Thames Water seek an order authorising it to compulsorily purchase 114 square metres of the subsoil under the property. The plan accompanying the application shows that the rear garden of the property ('the 94 garden') is faced by the rear garden of a house in Emlyn Road ('the ER garden'). The 94 garden is about 14.6 metres long from the rear wall of the house to the rear fence of the 94 garden. The ER garden is visually estimated to be about 30 metres long. Between the rear boundaries of the 94 garden and the ER garden is a strip of land which is about 17.5 metres wide. It is believed that the strip of land is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Historically the strip of land was part of a single track railway. For many years the strip of land has been used as allotments ('the allotments') which are today managed by Emlyn Leisure Gardens Association. The tunnel which has an internal diameter of 6.5 metres could be constructed entirely under the 17.5 metres width of the allotments. The advantages of constructing the tunnel under the allotments would be: (i) Thames Water would not need to compulsorily purchase any of the subsoil under the property (ii) The risk of ground settlement to the property would be reduced because the line of the tunnel would be further from the built part of the property (iii) The only buildings on the allotments are sheds without foundations so there is no risk of damage to any building on the allotments from ground settlement (iv) So far as the objectors are aware there have been no objections from those interested in the allotments to the construction of the tunnel under the allotments. Consultation has proceeded so far on the assumption that the tunnel would be constructed under the allotments.(see http://documents.scribd.com.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/m99etrhs0187qoy.pdf?t=1320227892) Objectors' Proposal The application should not be approved unless Thames Water alter the line of the tunnel so that it runs entirely under the allotments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gavin Starks
"1) Chambers Wharf will be the Main site for drilling in East London for 7 Years of which 3 will be 24/7 drilling operations. Further a 50m coffer dam will be deployed extending 25% across the river with barges being loaded 24/7 ( rubble dropped into metal barges by conveyor belt). This will present unacceptable level of noise pollution. I request a full noise risk assessment including water-based transmission as well as air-based transmission. As I live on a boat near the site, the water-based transmission is of greatest concern to me as it will directly impact the internal noise level in my home. 2) A 50m coffer dam (extending 25% across the river) will narrow the channel. This will force river traffic closer to the moorings on which I live, and dramatically increase the risk of dangerous wash. This is extremely likely to cause material structural damage, as well as presenting a safety risk to people (including children) who may be on-deck or on-site at the time. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Carol South
"I believe that I am interested party as the co-owner of a property in Wapping High Street immediately opposite the site. I suffer from a lung complaint and am concerned about the impact of dust and noise on a twenty four hour basis. I believe that Thames Water have taken little or no interest on the impact on the proposed works on either those who live adjacent to the site (including a school) or those of us who live immediately opposite Chambers Wharf. I remember only too well the effects of noise and dust during the demolition of the Chambers Wharf Buildings (at least that was confined to normal working hours) and the prevailing south-westerly wind affected the north bank of the river probably almost as much as the south side. Whilst I can appreciate the need for the tideway tunnel I think Thames Water have so far failed to demonstrate why they have chosen this site as opposed to other which would have less impact on people who live nearby and they have also failed to provide sufficient safeguards in protecting the interests of nearby properties and none at all for those of north of the river. In conclusion this is the wrong site and twenty four working would be an assault on our Human Rights."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gordon Muir-Carby
"Negative amenity impact on residents and visitors in this densely populated area. Potential loss of business and jobs for businesses on Shad Thames and Riverside. Maintenance of legal 'duty of care' and liability requirements for Kemble Water Ltd , its directors and co-investor MacQuarie. ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Clayworth
"I own with others, property potentially affected by the development and wish to be informed and remain informed of any potential situations that would or may affect my property."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Graham Group Limited and Jewson Limited (Graham Group Limited and Jewson Limited)
"Jewson Builders Merchants, Norman Road, Greenwich, SE10 9QX We write to express our comments and reservations to Thames Water Utilities Limited's Planning Application Reference: WW010001. We note that the application entails utilising the whole of the site currently occupied by Jewson at the above address which will presumably entail demolition of the existing buildings excluding arches. Jewson have traded successfully from this location for many years and we believe the proposed scheme if approved will result in the loss of a valuable asset to local businesses and the wider community. We feel it is unlikely that suitable alternative premises into which to relocate will be available and this will, of course, lead to total extinguishment of the business and associated loss of employment. We would ask that consideration is given to finding an alternative site for the purposes required by Thames Tideway Tunnel or that consideration is given to defer the scheme beyond the proposed 2016 commencement date to allow opportunity for Jewson to implement alternative plans. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gregory Begley
"The use of and impact on the local community in relation to using King Edward Park is both unnecessary and totally disproportionate to the apparent but not proven benefits particularly when a better and more cost effective alternative is readily available which has been proposed and demonstrably shown to deliver a better solution."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Halliard Property Company (part of the Freshwater Group of Companies) (Halliard Property Company (part of the Freshwater Group of Companies))
"Our clients have no objection to the principle of the provision of the Thames Tideway Tunnel or indeed the principle of providing a connecting tunnel to the Greenwich Pumping Station. However our clients have aspirations for the redevelopment of their site for a residential-led mixed use development in light of the location of Phoenix Wharf within the Deptford Creek and Greenwich Riverside Opportunity Area identified by the Greater London Authority which has led to the range of mixed use schemes, including residential use that have been developed or been granted planning permission within the locality. Our clients had been working up proposals and held pre-application discussions with the local planning authority in both Autumn 2011 in relation to its land and the land owned by Network Rail and its own site only in late 2012. The initial phase 1 consultation proposals put forward by Thames Water in respect of the Greenwich Pumping Station site had no impact on our clients land holding because it was proposed to tunnel from King’s Stairs Gardens towards the Greenwich Pumping Station site which meant that additional land beyond Thames Water’s ownership at the Pumping Station site was not necessary. However the phase 2 consultation proposals indicated that Thames Water’s proposed drive site to Abbey Mills be changed to Chambers Wharf, through the convenience of the joint purchase of the site with St James Homes which resulted in the reversing in the direction of the tunnel drive from Greenwich Pumping Station towards Chambers Wharf, thereby necessitating the need for further land at Phoenix Wharf to be secured. Despite the case made by Thames Water in its submission, we continue to remain concerned as to the basis upon which the Tunnel drive sites were moved from King’s Stair Gardens (KSG) to Chambers Wharf. We are concerned that this has unreasonably fettered Thames Water's discretion and/or compromised the fairness of the process and rendered the consultation process a box ticking exercise and the eventual decision therefore a fait accompli. It remains the case that the Chambers Wharf site is not big enough to accommodate two drive sites, thus necessitating that Greenwich Pumping Station be the site from which the connecting tunnel is driven, and thereby requiring the Phoenix Wharf site. However, KSG is large enough to accommodate both. As such, any decision regarding the identification of Chambers Wharf over KSG should not be a direct comparison of pros and cons between the two but also consider the directly related impact (including time, cost and disruption) at Greenwich Pumping Station (and Phoenix Wharf). When the overall effects are considered, we firmly believe that KSG is the optimum site. Furthermore we still feel that the site selection study submitted as part of the DCO application submission does not demonstrate the case for the use of the preferred option of Phoenix Wharf is sufficiently robust The proposed temporary acquisition of rights of additional land is made on the assumption that it cannot all be contained without the need to use Phoenix Wharf. The evidence base in support of this assumption is inadequate and is considered insufficient to support compulsory acquisition and interference with third party rights. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Harbour
"That the sewer is needed I am not disputing. My concern is that the manner in which it is constructed (and possibly to a lesser extent operated and mantained) should ensure that every effort has/is being taken to remove any adverse impact on, or at least mitigate the adverse impact on (1) loss of amenity for nearby occupiers and users (2) levels of noise, disturbance and other nuisances to be endured by those occupiers and users (3) the nearby environs and their general nature, and (4) blight in the areas of workings. I am not convinced that this is the case with the proposals for Chambers Wharf. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Higgins Homes plc
"Higgins Homes plc (Higgins) is the freehold owner of land at Bow Common Lane, London within the borough of Tower Hamlets (the Property). Compulsory purchase powers are sought over parts of the Property - plots 157, 160, 162 and 163 (the Plots). These plots are specified in Schedule 13 of the draft DCO. Accordingly, under article 30 of the draft DCO, the undertaker may acquire compulsorily such subsoil or rights in the subsoil as he needs, provided it lies more than 9 metres beneath the level of the surface of the land. Planning permission was obtained for development of the Property comprising 105 private flats, 52 affordable units and 868 sq m of commercial space on 17 December 2007 by Higgins’ predecessor. When Higgins purchased the land, the development had commenced by the construction of foundations. Higgins completed the superstructure of the building and the private and affordable units are now occupied. Higgins have applied for planning permission to convert the office space on the ground and first floors into 9 residential apartments and expect the units to be sold by July 2014. As the building is 12 storeys tall, Higgins estimate that the piled foundations constructed on the site by their predecessors will be approximately 30 to 35 metres deep. That includes piles in the parts of the Property comprising the Plots. The draft DCO proposes to grant to the undertaker the powers to compulsory purchase subsoil which includes the piled foundations of the building constructed on the Property. Higgins therefore objects as follows: 1. The acquisition (and excavation) of subsoil below the Plots at a depth of below 9 metres could adversely affect the stability of the development on the Property as it could impact upon the piled foundations of the building. That risk is unacceptable given that the buildings are occupied. 2. Higgins understand from the plans that the tunnel is intended to be located some 50 metres below the Property. The vertical limits of deviation extend only up to 3m upwards, but the DCO does not appear to expressly limit the right of acquisition to that zone, should for any reason a greater depth of subsoil acquisition below 9m be thought appropriate. 3. Higgins therefore seeks clarity as the extent of subsoil acquisition required and undertakings to ensure that the piled foundations will not be affected. 4. The uncertainty caused by the above will adversely impact upon the values of the properties and the ability of the individual owners to sell their interests. Potential purchasers of the new units (and their mortgagees) are likely to be extremely concerned and sales may be delayed or lost. 5. In the circumstances, there is no compelling case in the public interest to seek CPO powers relating to subsoil up to 9 metres below the Property. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hugh Maloney
"I live in Wapping close to the King Edward Memorial Park which I use daily when passing along the riverside path and regularly during the summer months for general recreation with my family. In principle I support the sewer tunnel proposal, London needs it, but given the length of time construction will take I want to see a proper commitment made to protecting the social impact on the day-to-day life of our community. 1. The first and obvious priority must be to keep the riverside walk open. Heavy traffic will need to cross the walkway, but that can be managed at relatively little cost or inconvenience. The alternative is to rout all pedestrians and cyclists up and along the Highway which would be a social and environmental disaster . 2. I have confidence that current construction standards are capable of minimizing the environmental impact of noise, pollution, parking etc. but strict standards need to be part of every contract and local people need to know of these standards so performance can be properly monitored and enforced. This of course requires a prompt and effective procedure that is simple for residents to use. 3. The third is about making sure the contractor’s compound takes only the minimum amount of the park and is sensitively placed, fenced and managed. These are my core priorities. I am sure the many additional issues discussed in our community will be taken up by others. Hugh Malone24/5/13 "
Non-Statutory Organisations
response has attachments
Inland Waterways Association (Inland Waterways Association)
"The Inland Waterways Association's freight group recognises the need for a flood/sewage reliefscheme and supports the general geography of the route alignment in relation to the river Thames itself. We have as a group been involved in Thames Water's on-going consultation process concerned as we are with the promotion of waterborne freight and see in the Thames Tideway proposals the expressed objective of maximising this. This we fully support for a number of reasons. 1) Thames Water has a significant environmental role and use of river transport can only enhance their credentials in this respect. 2) The transport of the adjacent landside corridor is heavily conjested with minimal scope for increasing capacity except at a great cost in environmental and cost terms. 3) The river itself is a ready made and arguably seriously underused freight artery. 4) The use of barge transport in respect of both Lee and the Crossrail tunnels has shown the potential of waterborne freight and the ability of the barge industry to respond to the challenges imposed - provision of barges of different types, tugs and landside handling facilities. However, it has to be acknowledged that original rhetoric was not always matched in implementation and Thames Tideway must place the necessary conditions on their contractors. 5) Barge use is ideal to maximise transport capacity use for materials sucha sa tunnel spoil and aggregates for foundations and infill at proposed wharf sites. 6) There exist waterside sites at which tunnel linings can be produced and other construction materials and equipment assembled for direct movement to work sites. 7) For too many years the story of the Thames has been one of disappearing wharves and Thames Water's proposals could well reverse this trend and they have our full support in proposing provision of new wharves, reactivating some existing wharves and intending to use water transport for longer term maintenance servicing. This return to river use could well provide a valuable demonstration effect and encouragement to others."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ioana Damian
"-"
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Cousins
"Such a major construction site in such a built up area with so many children should be avoided if at all possible. I have concerns about: 1) Air pollution 2) Road blockages in an area that already has too many 3) Structural damage to homes eg due to vibrations 4)Noise pollution 5)Endangering children"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeffrey Hughes
"Thames Water has not been forthcoming with full information regarding the actual impact upon the building that I live in during construction and I would like to be better informed by it on this. Also Thames Water should indemnify residents against any adverse impacts during both construction and for a reasonable period afterwards. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Josephine Flattery
"I am a long leaseholder of flat   Trafalgar Court, Wapping WallLondon E1W 3TF and have a share of the freehold. I have two concerns over the proposals: 1. The adverse impact that the shallow tunnelling will have on the land, foundations, piling and above ground and above water structures at Trafalgar Court under which the works will be undertaken. This may involve noise, dust, vibration and settlement. 2. The adverse impact, over a considerable period of time, that the construction works and constuction traffic will have on King Edwards Memorial Park, the wild birds (in particular the nesting Cormorants), the Thames Path, the Shadwell basin and Shadwell Basin Activity centre, the soccer & tennis pitches on Glamis Road and both Glamis Road and Wapping Wall. These areas are well used and valuable community spaces, some of which are unique or rare in a City centre location. Numerous locals, tourists, walkers and cyclists use these facilities everyday and the impact on the significant volume of heavy truck movements in this location will irreparably destroy this important green space, as well as proving an unacceptable health & safety risk to walkers and cyclists, too many of whom are seriously injured or killed on London roads as a result of this type of inappropriate heavy traffic turning on narrow roads not constructed for this type of large construction vehicle and heavy usage over a long sustained period. Current pollution levels are very high in the surrounding area, and the green speace at KEMP helps to mitigate such pollution. The use of KEMP, the removal of large numbers of trees and the introduction of extensive heavy traffic will increase the level of pollution to unacceptable levels. Tower Hamplet's has identified a brown field site that would prove to be a better site, using the planning sequential test, for the location of these construction activities. In view of the significant interference to the community, local amentities, walkers & cyclists and the loss of a rare green space in a City location, i trongly oppose the use of KEMP, Glammis Road and Wapping Wall as an access point for the construction of the tunnel and approve Tower Hamlet's proposal to use the alternative brownfield site in its place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karl-Reiner Riedlinger
"I live very close to the site and read about the project from "Save Your Riverside". I would like to get objective informations about the project and may be given the opportunity to comment on the proceedings as a citizen affected by the project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katharina Stanzel
"I believe that Thames Waters plans are biased towards an economically favorable option for TW shareholders with disregard for the overall cost benefit and the interests of the local community to which I belong. I would therefore respectfully request that the brownfield site on the Heckford street Industrial Site be used as a viable and existing alternative. Construction in the King Edward Memorial park will not only rob me and my fellow neighbours and wider community of the crucial amenity value of the park for the duration of the project construction (I.e. over three years), it will disturb a historical site, gifted to the people and a war memorial. Further my family and I will be directly exposed to construction noise, vibration, dust and potentially smells as well as increased traffic both on the Highway and as we understand the Thames. The value of our property will be diminished overlooking first the construction site then later the ventilation shafts and outfall of the super sewer with associated venting gases and machinery noise. We are not Nimby's and understand the need for the project fully. However we do not agree that corporate finance should dictate a much increased impact on the community then if the alternative brownfield site is chosen. We have been disappointed at the way TW has tried to skew/present information in favour of their preferred alternative with scant regard for the bigger picture and the communities interest. I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Liz Campbell
"General Statement The objectors do not oppose the construction of the tunnel in principle. The objectors support the overall objective of reducing the discharge of raw sewage into the River Thames. However, it is the view of the objectors that the scheme should not proceed in its present form. Objection-The Line of the Tunnel The line of the tunnel should be moved a few metres to the east to minimise the effect on private property rights caused by the necessary compulsory purchase of land. The plans accompanying the application indicate that: (i) The order limit and tunnel limit of deviation will pass under the rear wall of 94 Abinger Road ('the property') and (ii) The tunnel will be substantially (about 75%) constructed under the rear garden of the property To build the tunnel on this line Thames Water seek an order authorising it to compulsorily purchase 114 square metres of the subsoil under the property. The plan accompanying the application shows that the rear garden of the property ('the 94 garden') is faced by the rear garden of a house in Emlyn Road ('the ER garden'). The 94 garden is about 14.6metres long from the rear wall of the house to the rear fence of the 94 garden. The ER garden is visually estimated to be about 30 metres long. Between the rear boundaries of the 94 garden and the ER garden is a strip of land which is about 17.5 metres wide. It is believed that the strip of land is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Historically the strip of land was part of a single track railway. For many years the strip of land has been used as allotments ('the allotments') which are today managed by Emlyn Leisure Gardens Association. The tunnel which has an internal diameter of 6.5 metres could be constructed entirely under the 17.5 metres width of the allotments. The advantages of constructing the tunnel under the allotments would be: (i) Thames Water would not need to compulsorily purchase any of the subsoil under the property (ii) The risk of ground settlement to the property would be reduced because the line of the tunnel would be further from the built part of the property (iii) The only buildings on the allotments are sheds without foundations so there is no risk of damage to any building on the allotments from ground settlement (iv) So far as the objectors are aware there have been no objections from those interested in the allotments to the construction of the tunnel under the allotments. Consultation has proceeded so far on the assumption that the tunnel would be constructed under the allotments. (see http://documents.scribd.com.s3.amazonaws. Objectors' Proposal The application should not be approved unless Thames Water alter the line of the tunnel so that it runs entirely under the allotments. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
London Wildlife Trust (London Wildlife Trust)
"The Thames Tideway Tunnel will help tackle the 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage that overflow into the tidal River Thames in a typical year, when the Victorian sewerage system fills to capacity, after as little as 2mm of rainfall. Such levels of pollution are unacceptable and adversely impact on the wildlife of the Thames downstream from west London. The Tunnel provides the opportunity to create a lasting legacy as well a cleaner, healthier River Thames. It is the third and final part of the London Tideway Improvements - three major engineering schemes to improve water quality in the tidal River Thames; all are vital if the Thames is to comply with current environmental legislation and standards. At present the biodiversity of the Thames in London is directly and indirectly adversely impacted by the raw sewage which all too regularly pollutes the tidal Thames – designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Wildlife within the Capital, whilst further downstream it supports 8 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (covering over 15,000 ha), 4 Special Protection Areas and the Thames Estuary & Marshes Ramsar site. The tidal Thames is also a proposed Marine Conservation Zone, and forms a critical part of the new Greater Thames Marshes Nature Improvement Area. Despite the valiant efforts of various authorities over the past 5 decades in improving the water quality of the Thames and its tributaries the sewage inputs are still unacceptable, and prevent the river from achieving its biodiversity potential – from which amenity and other environmental benefits accrue. The future ambitions of the NIA and MCZ, let alone sustaining the conditions of the network of existing wildlife sites supported by the tidal Thames, are underpinned on the water quality of the river being able to sustain a healthy and diverse ecosystem. The issue of sewage discharging into the River Thames must therefore be tackled effectively and without further delay in order to meet the needs of wildlife, and for the continuing use of the river for amenity, education, community and national events, transport and tourism. Action to clean up the tidal Thames is long overdue. We believe, on balance, that the proposal to construct an interceptor sewer diverting sewage overflows away from the river and to proper sewage treatment facilities is the best and most effective short- and long-term solution. However, this must proceed in an integrated fashion with the implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and other green infrastructure. This will help to extend the life of the Thames Tideway Tunnel and help London adapt to climate change and ensure biodiversity gain. In addition, mitigation for the short-term impacts on construction and operational sites, especially those that may result in losses of or damage to existing natural features, river shore stretches and green spaces (including other sites of wildlife value), need to be brought forward to help ensure that the Thames Tideway Tunnel results in the net gains for biodiversity and amenity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Looker Motor Group Limited
"Dear Sir/Madam RE: YOUR REF: WW010001 PROPOSED THAMES WATER UTILITIES LIMITED (THAMES TIDEWAY TUNNEL) DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER 201[ ] SECTION 56 PLANNING ACT 2008 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DCO BY THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE OF ENGLAND AND WALES DATED 16 APRIL 2013 LOOKERS MOTOR GROUP LIMITED REF: 40380 BOOK OF REFERENCE PLOT NUMBERS 189 AND 190 WITHIN LONDON BOROUGH OF WANDSWORTH Further to the above matter we have previously made representations on behalf of our client as part of the consultation process and have also met with representatives of Thames Water Utilities Limited to explain the impact of the Order proposals on our client’s site. We have attached our letter dated 3 October 2012 which summarises our understanding of the respective positions. We have not received a response to this letter and are disappointed to note that part of our clients’ site is still included within the limits of deviation required by the proposed order as we had understood that it was no longer necessary to interfere with any part of our client’s site. As stated within our letter dated 3 October 2012 our client fully supports the preferred tunnel route but requests that the limits of deviation are amended such that there will be no possibility of the tunnel encroaching within 6m from our client’s boundary. In the event that the proposed tunnel was to be located within 6m of our client’s site boundary there would be significant implications upon their ability to deliver full development in accordance with planning policy aspirations. As discussed with Thames Water we therefore request that the order is amended to delete any reference to plots 189 and 190. Yours faithfully Peter Roberts CEnv MRICS Partner - Rapleys LLP [email protected] DDI: 01480 371423 Letter Dated 3 October addressed to Thames Water Dear Sir/Madam RE: VW CAR DEALERSHIP, 98 YORK ROAD, BATTEREA, SECTION 48 PLANNING ACT 2008 THAMES TIDEWAY TUNNEL Further to our letter dated 21 September 2012 my colleague Angus Irvine has now met with Chris Stratford who we understand is Planning Consents Manager (West) and we thank you for the opportunity of discussing the issues in more detail. We understand that you are proposing to install a new tunnel connecting the Main Tunnel under the River Thames to Falconbrook Pumping Station. The preferred route lies directly under the Prices Candle site otherwise known as Bridges Court Car Park but you are seeking the ability to vary the actual route within an area defined as “limits of deviation for Work No.10b”. As previously set out and explained to you at the recent meeting the current limits of deviation include part of York Road and Bridges Court and apart from encroaching into our client’s ownership will also impact upon the redevelopment of the current car dealership. However, you have informed us that if the preferred tunnel route was adopted the required limits of deviation would not encroach upon our client’s ownership and our client’s site would be outside of the “consultation zone”. As such we understand that there would be no impact on our client’s ability to fully develop their site as proposed. On the assumption, therefore, that you are able to confirm that our understanding is correct we fully support the preferred tunnel route and request that the limits of deviation are repositioned along the eastern boundary to be no further north than the green line as detailed on the attached plan. Whilst the green line is our client’s preferred option you informed us at the recent meeting that as long as the proposed tunnel is at least 6m away from our client’s boundary the site would be outside of the “consultation zone”. You also informed us that the tunnel could be no closer than 6m to the edge of the deviation zone. On the assumption that we have understood the position correctly, we are of the view that the front (southernmost edge) of the footpath on Bridges Court should comprise the absolute northern limit of the deviation boundary and then only if a variation of the tunnel route from the preferred route was unavoidable but we would prefer that the actual boundary was to the south of this. We have illustrated this boundary by a blue line on the attached plan. We would be grateful if you would consider the above comments and confirm that our understanding of the position, as set out above, is correct. We would also be grateful if you would. now relocate the boundary of the limits of deviation to a position as close as possible to the green line but no closer to our client’s site than the blue line. We would also be happy to provide any further information that you may require regarding the proposed development in order to assist your understanding of our client’s proposals and would welcome a further meeting if you feel it would be of assistance. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely Peter Roberts CEnv MRICS Partner - Rapleys LLP [email protected] DDI: 01480 371423 "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lord Aberconway
"I live opposite the site on the moorings and believe there to be serious issues with noise, wash and light pollution, and that there are better alternatives. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Manuel Williams
"I whole heartedly agree with the cleaning up of the Thames. I whole heartedly disagree, however, on Thames Waters' supposed solution. The Victorians built a sewage system that has worked well beyond its capacity. If Thames Water are to charge every Londoner £80 a year for life to pay for this and spend four billion pounds, surely it should be a system that we are all proud of. Thames Water are rectifying only 37 out of 57 or so rainwater sewer overflows, so its not even a solution. I imagine that by the time construction is complete, and population has increased, that we would need to start all over again. Will we be charged another £80 per year for life? Thames Water are doing this to comply with EU legislation on clean waters, so lets not do this just to be told we have to do it again. Lets do it right first time. There are many alternative engineering solutions that other large cities use. On another note, as resident of Luna House next to the Chambers Wharf site, living conditions will be intolerable. We have been informed that there is likely to be a period of 3-years/24-hour construction during a total of 7-10 years. Dust and noise pollution would be impossible to minimise with the site being in the immediate vicinity of a popular residential area. Three schools straddle the proposed site, so our young will be affected by the pollution, and pollution aside, proposed HGV moments will cause increased danger to all. The local road network is not suitable for large vehicles. There is only one main way in and out from Jamaica Road, and that is always congested in rush hour. On a final note, my only investment is my property. I will not be able to sell until the proposed works is complete. I had it on the market for 1 and half years without one offer. I have had lots of interest due to the river views, but every prospective buyer has been put off due to the proposals. I have now taken it off the market."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maria Carey
"As a neighbour of the site I am very concerned about the proposed 7 year 24/7 work schedule for this site. As I live on the river I am concerned that the proposed 50m coffer dam (extending 25% across the river) with barges being loaded 24/7 ( rubble dropped into metal barges by conveyor belt) will cause massive noise and dust pollution river traffic will be all pushed to our side of the river making more wash which will endanger my children as the board our home. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Markus Wunde
"I disagree with the use of King Edward Memorial Park as a construction site. It is the only large green space in Limehouse and would be seriously impacted by the construction site - not to mention the noise and dust that comes with it. It must be possible to use one of the disused sites/houses at other parts of the waterfront or to move the construction site fully into the water with just a bridge connecting the construction site and the park."
Local Authorities
Mayor of London (Mayor of London)
"Mayor of London Relevant Representation The Mayor has made extensive and wide ranging representations to Thames Water’s pre-application consultations in relation to the Thames Tideway Tunnel. In responding to pre-application consultation the Mayor’s response has incorporated the views of Transport for London (TfL). The Mayor and TfL will seek to combine as much evidence as possible for the examination however we are registering as separate bodies in order that we can cover any specialist topics at the most appropriate level. The Mayor takes a London wide perspective of the project as it is clearly a strategic project aimed at addressing an issue which affects a large proportion of London. The Mayor is also aware of the local impact that this strategic project will have, in particular through its construction. This representation does not specify all of the issues that the Mayor has raised during the pre-application consultation responses, which total over 200 points at the Phase 2 pre-application consultation stage, instead it groups those issues into general themes as set out below. Individual London Boroughs will no doubt also wish to comment on the specific local impact of some of these issues. Principle of the Tunnel In principle the Mayor accepts the need for the project as the evidence produced indicates that there are no viable alternatives, this is supported by Policy 5.14 of the London Plan. Not withstanding the support in principle for the project the Mayor has a number of areas of concern which can be summarized as follows: Transport impact of the scheme’s construction. The Mayor is concerned at the volume of traffic generation, and in particular the volume of HGV traffic generation. The impacts are likely to include, but are not limited to: loss of highway capacity, increased congestion, road safety, loss of parking and loading capacity, removal or relocation of bus services and stops, diversions to footpath and cycle routes and in at least one case the relocation of a river passenger pier. The overall Transport Strategy and detailed Transport Assessments have only been made available at a late stage in the pre-application process despite on-going engagement. In response to this Thames Water has sought to specify that barges will be used for some of the bulk materials movement, however the Mayor believes that more materials can reasonably be moved by barge and the detail of the wider transport impacts has yet to be fully considered. TfL will lead on evidence in relation to this issue for the Mayor. Protective Provisions. The Mayor is concerned to ensure that the physical risk to key transport infrastructure such as tube, rail and road tunnels bridges and embankments under, over or near to the tunnel route and construction sites are protected, monitored and measures are in place in case of any potentially catastrophic damage. In particular the current proposal to cap liability is completely unacceptable to the Mayor. TfL will lead on evidence in relation to this issue for the Mayor. Enabling works The Mayor is concerned as these are not specified as part of the draft DCO. The spread and impact of such works may be wide spread and in some cases remote from construction sites. It is currently unclear as to the implication on the DCO should applications for any such works be refused or delayed. TfL will lead on evidence in relation to this issue for the Mayor. Tunnel and shaft excavation material. The project will generate large volumes of waste materials from the tunnelling and shaft excavations and whilst the Mayor is generally content with the draft DCO proposals, all steps to make the best re-use of material with minimal transport impacts should be pursued and this may require flexibility to respond to emerging opportunities for more beneficial uses to be considered. Energy Use. The project will use a large amount of energy both during construction and in its on-going operation. The Mayor is concerned to ensure that energy use is minimised, renewable energy is used where practical and energy is generated by the scheme where viable. Noise & Air Emissions. The project will create noise and emissions to air and will contribute to air quality problems and/or odour during construction and potentially during operation phase. The Mayor will wish to ensure that the DCO minimises these impacts. Construction site management. Not withstanding the numerous concerns about construction impacts at individual sites, which individual London Boroughs will wish to comment in detail on, it will be important to establish clear reporting, communication and remediation channels between local communities and the construction contractors and Thames Water to quickly address any specific problems that arise or unusual activities that may be required. Scheme design. The Mayor is concerned to ensure that this project has a clear and consistent design theme that is readily identifiable as one of the great civil engineering achievements of the city. Site remediation and restoration. Following what will in some cases be long term construction, it will be important to establish high quality re-instatement of construction sites that deliver productive land uses for the sites and reflect local needs. Whilst Thames Water has sought to achieve this with the draft DCO, with some sites not being complete until approximately 2023, it will be important to ensure a suitable review process closer to the time that reflects the needs and priorities of London and local communities at that time. Scheme cost. The Mayor is concerned at the overall scale of cost of the project and at the mechanism(s) required to control those costs. Whilst this may not be a planning matter the Mayor considers that it is an important consideration for the project. Timescale. The Mayor is concerned that the long construction period, in particular at the main tunnelling sites, means that the inevitable construction impacts will be felt over a long period. Whilst recognising that tunnelling takes as long as it takes and there is little scope for acceleration of such activities, it is important that all practical measures are taken to ensure that slippage is monitored and limited and that measures are in place to limit the impact of any delays and to take any reasonable opportunities to accelerate the construction process, should they become available. Summary Further detail on the points will be given in the Mayor’s Local Impact Report, which will include TfL issues, and further points may be made in Written Representations. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Metro Nominees (Wandsworth) No. 1 Ltd & Metro Nominees (Wandsworth) No. 2 Ltd
"Metro Nominees (Wandsworth) No. 1 Limited and Metro Nominees (Wandsworth) No. 2 Limited ("Metro") are the leaseholders of a large shopping centre in Wandsworth Town Centre known as the Southside Centre (the "Site"), part of which is situated within the area where works are proposed by the applicant for the shaft and site works at King George's Park (Work No. 9a and 9b). Metro have been notified by the applicant that parts of the subsoil of the Site are listed in the Book of Reference (Document Reference 4.3.14) to be compulsorily acquired (Plot numbers 159, 165, 173, 174 and 179). Metro are concerned with the potential effects that the proposed works may have on the existing structure at the Site bearing in mind the potential proximity of the tunnelling works, particularly should the works need to employ the limits of deviation requested underneath the existing structure at the Site to any significant extent. The existing structure is believed to be founded on under-reamed piles with a depth of circa 14m, although historic record information is incomplete and not entirely reliable. The potential for undesirable interactions between the zones of influence of Southside’s foundations and the proposed Thames Tunnel works will need to be carefully considered. Metro further consider that the proposed traffic management routing to the King George’s Park site may create significant conflicts and challenges to users of both the Southside Centre and wider Wandsworth Town Centre, particularly those wishing to use the multi-storey car park accessed via Neville Gill Close. With regard to the indicative details of the proposed permanent works to King George’s Park detailed in the Book of Plans (Document Reference 2.11), Metro do not consider the kiosk and ventilation structure proposals to be reflective of the nature and character of the area, in contravention of Wandsworth Borough Council’s Development Management Policies clause 2.3. Metro wishes to register as an interested party and to have the opportunity to make further written representations and appear at the preliminary meeting and any open floor and relevant issue specific hearings. Metro also specifically requests pursuant to section 92 of the Planning Act 2008 that a compulsory acquisition hearing is held in relation to powers of compulsory acquisition being granted in relation to the project. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miss Parisha Patel
"Interested Party"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Misty Spooner
"Me and my family live in an extrememly close proximity to the proposed site. The traffic congestion is already quite bad in the area - I believe if this project goes ahead it could get worse, especially with the proposed trucks transporting spoil in the area. My children attend   school, even closer to the proposed site and I have major concerns for their welfare (one of them being asthmatic) including possible stand still traffic, dust, fumes and constant noise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr P J Hughan c/o Leila Hsuan, UK Property Investments on behalf of Mr P J Hughan c/o UK Property Investments
"I rent and manage a property for Mr P J Hughan known as   and the managing agents of this development has requested that I register as an 'interested party' before the deadline date of 28th May 2013"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Richard Norton
"I support Thames Water's proposal to build a waste water tunnel under the Thames and to site the Putney CSO upstream of Putney Bridge. However, we are very concerned that the stability of our stretch of the river wall, downstream and to the East of Putney Bridge, may be put at risk by the tunnel drilling operations under the river. We are particularly concerned as we understand that some years ago, the stability of our section of the wall was threatened by the placing of additional loads on the ground adjacent to the wall immediately to the west of our property. We are, therefore, very concerned that the vibrations caused by the drilling could have a similar damaging effect and would, therefore, like our property to be included in the "zone of Influence" and for the stabilty of the wall to be closely monitored before, during and after the drilling."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Maureen Perkins
"I am the owner of   , Battersea Reach. I am concerned about the effect of the application on the structure and value of the property."
Other Statutory Consultees
Natural England (Natural England )
"Wish to submit and electronic version of our response to this Nationally Strategic Infrastructure projects under our remit as the Government's non departmebntal public body with regard to ecology and biodiversity http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Case-6466-Consult-81489-Thames-Tideway-Tunnel-Statement-of-Relevant-Reps-24-May-2013.pdf Please note: If this link does not open automatically please copy and paste it into your browser"
Other Statutory Consultees
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail Infrastructure Limited)
"1. Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (“Network Rail”) 1.1 Network Rail owns and operates the heavy rail infrastructure of Great Britain and is responsible for its maintenance, repair and renewal. Train services on the network are operated by train operating companies to which Network Rail grants rights to use its railway in the form of access contracts approved by the Office of Rail Regulation. 1.2 Network Rail operates the railway network under the authority of a network licence granted under section 8 of the 1993 Act. Condition 1 of that licence (Network Management), which was revised in April 2009 sets out Network Rail’s responsibilities for maintaining, renewing and developing the rail network. 1.3 Network Rail is under a duty (enforceable by the Office of Rail Regulation) to operate and manage the rail network efficiently and economically, so far as reasonably practicable and having regards to all relevant circumstances, to satisfy the needs to train operators and rail users. 2. Impact on Network Rail 2.1 Thames Water’s proposals for the construction and operation of a waste water storage and transfer tunnel along the route of the Thames (“the TTT”) impact Network Railway significantly, as follows: 2.1.1 Compulsory Acquisition of operational land (a) Network Rail is the freehold owner, or occupier of land listed in the Book of Reference submitted with the Application. The effect of the proposed DCO would be to confer unfettered compulsory purchase powers of acquisition over it, and the Applicant would accordingly be able to acquire and take possession of operational railway land. Network Rail insists that provisions to acquire operational land, or rights over it, be removed from the order and any arrangement to use such land is agreed with Network Rail and its assets and operations are protected by the inclusion in the DCO of suitable protective provisions; (b) Network Rail notes the provisions in section 127 of the Planning Act 2008 and is of the view that land cannot be purchased without serious detriment to the carrying on of Network Rail’s undertaking, or if purchased cannot be replaced by other land belonging to, or available for acquisition by, the Applicant without serious detriment to the carrying on of Network Rail’s undertaking. 3. Impact on Network Rail Infrastructure assets and operations. 3.1 Network Rail owns infrastructure which is functional in the discharge of its statutory duty to provide a safe and efficient railway. This infrastructure includes track, bridges and viaducts. The TTT route implicates a direct impact upon Network Rail assets, including but not limited to the following bridges and structures, which will, amongst other things, require protection from scouring and settlement:- 3.1.1 Chelsea River Bridge; 3.1.2 Grosvenor Railbridge; 3.1.3 Charing Cross Hungerford Railbridge; 3.1.4 Blackfriars Railbridge; 3.1.5 Cannon Street Railbridge; 3.1.6 Deptford Creek Lifting Bridge; 3.1.7 Wandsworth Town Viaduct Arches 13 to 19; 3.1.8 Harts Wharf Viaduct Arches 45 to 57; 3.1.9 Bridge over Deptford Church Street; 3.1.10 Arched Viaduct Bridge west of Creekside to Deptford Church Street; 3.1.11 Bridge over Creekside; 3.1.12 Arched Viaduct Bridge west of Deptford Creek Lifting Bridge to Creekside; 3.1.13 Arched Viaduct Bridge west of Deptford Church Street to Deptford High Street; and 3.1.14 Bridge over Limehouse Cut and River Lee. 3.2 Network Rail is concerned that the tunnelling works underneath Network Rail assets such as those listed in paragraph 3.1 will cause settlement and impact adversely on the structural integrity of those structures. 3.3 Further, Network Rail is concerned that the construction of structures within the river environment by the TTT will also cause scouring and erosion to Network Rail’s bridges listed in paragraph 3.1 and will impact adversely on the structural integrity of those structures. 3.4 In addition, Network Rail is concerned that the settlement will have the effect of changing the geometry of the track which runs over those structures. Such changes are potentially a safety hazard, and cause disruption to rail services while the impact is investigated and rectified. Such precautions are required as in extreme cases, a change in track geometry may cause a train to derail. 3.5 In order that rail infrastructure is effectively protected, Network Rail would expect to see protective provisions within the proposed DCO. Protective provisions are invariably included in private Bills, Orders promoted under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and Development Consent Orders (such as the proposed DCO) for the protection of operational railway networks, and have the effect of protecting Network Rail, it’s operational land and infrastructure. Network Rail is concerned that no such provision is made in the proposed DCO. As such, the proposed DCO is materially deficient. 3.6 Network Rail is also concern of the effect of dewatering on operational railway (in particular bridges) in the following areas:- 3.6.1 Putney Embankment Foreshore; 3.6.2 Barn Elms; 3.6.3 Victoria Embankment Foreshore; 3.6.4 Albert Embankment Foreshore; and 3.6.5 it’s operational railway network. 4. The draft DCO 4.1 Network Rail objects to the drafting of various provisions of the DCO, in particular the DCO is deficient without the inclusion of specific protective provisions for the protection of Network Rail, incorporating an indemnity for losses suffered by Network Rail as a consequence of the proposed TTT. Network Rail is particularly concerned at TTT’s ability to fund the costs of the project and meet the various liabilities that will arise in implementing the project. Moreover Network Rail is concerned at proposals to allow functions arising under the DCO to be transferred to a third party without any guarantees as the ability of that person to discharge liabilities arising under the DCO. 5. Conclusions 5.1 Network Rail does not object in principle to the scheme. However, it strongly objects to the proposed compulsory acquisition of operational land, as well as potential impact of the scheme on railway infrastructure. 5.2 In order to protect its infrastructure and safeguard its ability to effectively, safely and efficiently discharge its statutory duty, Network Rail requires that the DCO be amended to include protective provisions for the protection of Network Rail and for other amendments to be made to the DCO to protect Network Rail’s interests. 5.3 Network Rail reserves the right to raise further issues in evidence. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Roe
"As the site is in a primarily residential area, it is clearly unsuitable for such long term and large scale construction site. The roads and pavements in the area are already under significant traffic pressure from current use. Please note that there is already large scale residential development at Chelsea and Imperial Wharfs. Also there is increased road traffic in the area due to poor public transport links. Hence when Chelsea FC play at home the local area's traffic is beyond breaking point. It cannot cope any more. The proposed site is earmarked for significant residential development is any even, and there is a local shortage of housing. Therefore this proposed project would stop a considerable number of residential units from being built for the foreseeable future and most likely for ever due to the depth and size of the remaining drill shaft hole. The environmental impact is unacceptable given close proximity to residential buildings, schools and sheltered housing. Also this super sewer project is not fit for purpose. It is no longer supported by numerous independent reviews and professional opinions, it should be completely reviewed and alternative schemes considered which will be far more cost effect, cause far less disruption across London and be far more effective in combating the sewage overflow problems. Better alternative sites are available where impact on the residential populations would be significantly reduced. Perfectly acceptable alternative is to use an area at Barnes Elms, as in Southern Waters own words this is a temporary facility so in longer run no loss of recreational land as can be put back to that use post construction finishing. There would be very little impact on residential areas for the Barnes Elms site. Carnwarth Rd is narrow and completely unsuitable for 24hr movement of HGV vehicles. It's junction with Wandsworth Bridge Rd is regularly backed up with queuing traffic currently and this would create an unacceptable detriment to the pubic roads, poorly served by public transport. The junction is also unsuitable and dangerous for HGV vehicles to be using - there are already traffic calming bollards in surrounding roads to stop such vehicles accessing these "pinch" points proving there are already existing highways issues. Therefore there would be a health and safety issue, not least an increased pollution issue. Safety for kids too. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Nicola Harries
"None"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Orla Dunne
" "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Klinkby-Silver
"I have read and understood the above text"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Joseph Hegarty
"I believe that the planned project is totally unsuitable for this densely populated area and will cause massive disruption over many years. There must be alternative solutions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Makower
"My 'interest' in the Tunnel project is personal, having been born beside the Tideway, lived beside it for much of my life, and having been Owner and Master of small boats which I have used on the Tideway. Personally I have no doubt about the need to prevent untreated sewage overflowing into the Tideway, having been out in our boat 'Daphne IV' with my wife Katharine on the afternoon after a huge rainstorm in August 2009, and seen and smelled all the sewage-products floating about and giving off quite a stink. But please construct the Tunnel WITHOUT permanently encroaching into the River itself unless you absolutely have to. And wherever you build new works on the Riverside, whether on and behind the River Wall, or as new encroachment, please include as legacy a landing facility for small boats - preferably a small pontoon, but a ladder would be better than nothing. Peter Makower. Mayor's Coxswain LB Hounslow (Retd). 24 MAY 13."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philippa Aylmer
"The site for this massive project is too small and too close to residents. Fulham is home to thousands and a site next to the river should not be used for the super sewer but used for wharf regeneration and amenities for the recreation of its residents. The commercial and human cost of choosing Carnwath Road as a site for the super sewer is too great. It will be destructive and disruptive for the thousands of people living throughout Fulham. And six years of traffic congestion is outrageous. Additionally, we, Thames Water customers will end up paying for this scheme. Thames Water must find another way. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England (Public Health England)
"The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) regulations 2009 (as amended) identify Public Health England as a statutory consultee for all applications likely to involve chemicals, poisons or radiation which could potentially cause harm to people and likely to affect significantly public health. As a statutory consultee The Health Protection Agency (now part of Public Health England) have previously provided comments to Thames water in response to their phase 1 public consultation and to the Planning Inspectorate in response to a request for a scoping opinion. Further to previous correspondence with Thames Water on 3rd May 2012, Public Health England wishes to be satisfied that the Health Impact assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment consider all applicable routes of exposure, including deposition to land and uptake via ingestion. This would refer to the potential for contaminants to be present in the soil and also during the construction phase of the development. The initial submissions referred to pathways via the food chain and suggested that only inhalation was considered a relevant pathway for the project. Public Health England suggests that the Health Impact assessment should consider, by way of the Environmental Impact Assessment, any other potential routes of exposure to contaminated soil or other material (not just ingestion via the food chain). The health impact assessment should screen all potential pathways and assess if there is a potential for adverse risks to health. Unfortunately, Public Health England does not appear to have been notified by the applicant of the acceptance of the planning application and as such is not is a position to provide full comments and observations on the Health Impact Assessment and supporting documentation which was submitted with the application. Public Health England wishes to provide more detailed comments at the appropriate stage in the decision making process. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Regina Syhunliong
"It's expensive, and not creating a long term solution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Leftwich
"As an owner/leaseholder of a property at Battersea Reach , namely   , I have been advised by the Management Company administering the estate , Rendall Rittner , that the proposed application effects the development and as such it is in my interest to "register and interest" in the application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rt Hon Justine Greening MP
"I wish to engage with the Planning Inspectorate on this planning application in my capacity as a constituency MP for Putney, Roehampton & Southfields. Putney suffers from some of the worst sewage pollution in the whole of London due to the tidal flow and the curve in the River Thames, with 820,000 tonnes of untreated sewage being pumped directly along the Putney stretch of the Thames annually. The river is a cherished part of life in Putney, with a very popular river tow path, many rowing and sailing clubs along the river, as well as being the start of the University Boat Race. As a consequence, the Thames Tunnel is a very important project for London and my constituency. I believe we should be working to ensure the river is protected for residents today and future generations. I believe the Thames Tunnel offers the most viable sustainable long term solution and I also want to see the project delivered in a way that takes care of our local environment and manages disruption to residents to a minimum. Thames Water has identified three sites needed to connect combined sewer overflows to the Thames Tunnel at Barn Elms, Putney Embankment Foreshore and King George’s Park. Since the phase one consultation I have been working hard with my community and Thames Water through public meetings and a residents working group to engage in the development of this project. The majority of my constituents agree that there is a need to tackle the sewage problem in the Thames, and their main concerns have been to ensure that a project to protect and enhance the river environment does not cause other excessive damage itself to our environment, local community or quality of life. Thames Water has reflected key concerns the community had about Barn Elms, Putney Embankment Foreshore and King George’s Park sites by amending the proposals. I am pleased a number of significant changes have been made to the proposals to reduce the detrimental impact on our environment and community. Most importantly for our local environment was the decision to protect the greenfield Barn Elms site and proceed instead utilising a brownfield site as the preferred main drive shaft site. That said there are a number of significant outstanding concerns, particularly the use of Glendarvon Street to access the Putney Embankment site during the construction of the temporary slipway, and more broadly the impact of lorry movements on our local roads. In addition to the comments I made in my consultation responses and my ongoing dialogue with Thames Water, I wanted to take this opportunity to register as an interested party to continue to engage with this process on behalf of my community. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Benzies
"I am registering interest to ensure I retain full rights to get information about settlement risks and receive compensation in the event of a mishap, etc. This is because I own a property bordering onto land(river) where the works may take place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sally Sutton
"Affects of noise 24/7 of the site works Increase in boat movements that may affect the tidal wash in relation to Hermitage Community Moorings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Save Your Riverside (Save Your Riverside)
"Save Your Riverside (SYR) is a community group with several hundred supporters on both sides of the river in the vicinity of Chambers Wharf (CW). The group was formed after CW was purchased by Thames Water (TW) in early 2011, and when, although initially ruled out as a possible site, it then became a candidate for a major construction site for the tunnel. Since then we have participated in numerous meetings with TW, engaged in lengthy correspondence with them, and made full submissions of our views at every stage. Some 2000 people have signed our petition. It is evident from TW’s plans for CW that they would have an extremely severe detrimental impact on the lives of not only the thousands of persons who reside in this densely populated area (2500 within 250m of the site, with many more affected further away and on the north side of the river), but also on the health and education of children at the high quality schools located close to the site, and on local businesses. Despite repeated requests from SYR, and promises by TW, details of TW's consideration of options for sites and drive strategies for the Eastern section of the project have not been forthcoming. We will show that: • TW has failed to comply with requirements of the NPS, for example avoiding “significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise”. • There are different ways of constructing the project which would significantly reduce, if not eliminate, impacts on local residents and schools at CW. • TW has failed to thoroughly investigate these alternatives and adequately compare the relative local impacts. If CW were to be used in the way proposed by TW, its mitigation proposals are wholly inadequate, for example: • TW’s impact assessments, notably on noise, give a false impression of the true impact through the manner in which the data is presented. • TW seeks to be exempt from the ability of citizens to sue for nuisance despite accepting that noise levels will be in excess of recognised limits. All citizens should retain the right to sue and the proposed exemption should be struck out of the DCO. • An intention to utilise “silent piling techniques” is referred to but “cannot be guaranteed” and can be dropped solely at the discretion of TW or its contractors after the commencement of construction. • Although presented as a generous support for local residents, TW’s non-statutory schemes for noise insulation and compensation are nothing of the sort. They set far too high a test for almost any claimant to succeed, and are not independent as claimed. Moreover if mitigation measures accepted by claimants proved ineffective at controlling impacts to acceptable levels, they would be ineligible for compensation. Given the significant impacts arising from the choice of CW as a construction site on the locality, we believe an open-floor hearing should be held on the impact of the tunnel project on Southwark and Wapping to give local residents an opportunity to express their views orally as well as through written representations. We will also wish to participate in any issue-specific hearings which we hope the Examining Authority will arrange which relate to the issues in our representations. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shobhit Kumar
"My representation is summarised in the following points: 1. I do not support the selection of the KEMP Foreshore over the alternative Heckford Street and I believe the criteria has not been applied fairly to both options. KEMP is the only nearly park that my family and I have access to and taking that away during the term of construction will be taking life away from the community 2. TW has failed to engage fully with me (and OSW residents) because I am still not sure of the impact of a tunnel going directly below our property. I have read all the material shared till date but none gives me a good picture of the actual impact (Noise, vibration, pollution, traffic) 3. I request a satisfactory indemnity against any impact to the property during and a reasonable period after the completion of the project "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon McKeown
"The works on the proposed tunnel will generate increased traffic throughout Central London, an area which is already congested. They will also cause significant environmental damage - both short and long term - particularly in the places chosen as drive and reception sites such as Chambers Wharf site, which is adjacent to two schools. Children will inevitably suffer as a result. The scheme is misguided since the problem of storm water could be handled far more cheaply with less disruption and environmental damage through local primary treatment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Southfields Grid Residents Association (Southfields Grid Residents Association)
"The Transport Assessment for Dormay Street (7.10.05) indicates at 12.2.5 that all materials are to be transported by road. The estimate is that HGV movements will total 10,600 over the construction period, with a maximum of 50 movements a day, by lorries entering into and exiting from Armoury Way. This does not take account of other vehicle movements to the site. The plans state that there will be a large volume of excavated material from the Dormay Road site, estimated at 35,000t. The Transport Strategy provides that the river will be used for transport where feasible, practical and cost effective, but, as far as we can see, no argument has been presented in these documents why it is not being considered for the Dormay Street site. We were told that it was because they did not wish to tie their contractors to using the river at this location but this argument could apply to all their contractors moving waste. The river is the best way to reduce the HGV movements. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
St George Central London Ltd. (St George Central London Ltd.)
"St George is an interested party as a land owner who has entered in to an agreement with Thames Water Utilities Limited on 19th November 2012 (the “Agreement”) relating to the proposed Thames Tunnel works at the Hammersmith Embankment Pumping Station. To the extent that the drawings submitted by Thames Water for the Development Consent Order are aligned with and in accordance with the Agreement then St George does not oppose the application in principle, but subject to our right to submit (if we feel appropriate) formal representations following a full review of the application. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
St James Group Land and Planning (St James Group Land and Planning)
"Representation to follow on 28.05.13. St James own development sites adjacent to the main drive sites at Kirtling Street, LB Wandsworth; Chambers Wharf, LB Southwark and Carnwath Road, LB Hammersmith and Fulham. Whilst we do not object to the provision of the tunnel we will be making representations regarding working hours, practices and noise levels etc that we feel are appropriate to protect the purchasers of our properties. Please see the links below for the subsequent representations, received on 28.05.2013: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/10-2-2012-TT-Stage-2-Consultation-St-James-comments-on-Chambers-Wharf.pdf http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Comments-re-TTT-App-for-development-consent.pdf If either of these links do not work, please cut and paste them into your browser."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Turner
"I support the construction of the TTT. As an angler I am well aware of the hugely negative impact of effluent discharge into the River Thames, and I would like to see this practice made unnecessary. I find it appalling that the health and wellbeing of everything in, on and beside the river, is compromised on such a regular basis. This is London in the 21st century, it's time for change and that change is the TTT."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Antell
"I own my home   and have since September 1995. I am concerned that the tunnel will damage my property/land and that it will adversely affect my enjoyment of my land. It will be a huge inconvenience to me if my property/land is damaged and/or if the value of my property is in any way adversely affected. The Thames Tunnel plans show that the tunnel comes very close to the back of my house in Lillian Road. My garden backs onto St Paul's School field and then there is the river Thames. It is not necessary that the proposed tunnel comes so close to the back of the houses, the tunnel could be located further into St Paul's School field and nearer the Thames. I understand that Thames Water/one of its companies/or a company associated with Thames Water owns St Paul's School field, they should therefore be obligated to use their own land rather than my land or coming too close to mine. It is not necessary for Thames Water to build so close to the back of my house. They can build closer to the Thames, nearer to the centre of St Paul's School field. If there is to be any loss or damage or unsettling of the land or property as a consequence of Thames Water building the water tunnel it should be Thames Water that suffers this loss. Thames Water is a far wealthier company/organisation than I am or than any of the other people in Lillian Road. It is not equitable that the owners/occupants/interested parties of houses in Lillian Road are being or could be so adversely affected by Thames tunnel, particularly in view of the fact that Thames tunnel could be located slightly nearer the river Thames and further into St Paul’s School field and then not affect any of us or any of us to such an extent in Lillian Road. If Thames Water still want to build their tunnel so near the back of Lillian Road houses Thames tunnel should be required to give full compensation to the owners of the properties in Lillian Road. Thames tunnel is instead proposing a ridiculously small amount of money as compensation and this is so grossly inequitable in view of how wealthy the Thames tunnel organisation/company associated with it is and also in view of how much money Thames tunnel will cost. It seems hugely inequitable that the companies involved in this project are so wealthy and yet the owners of properties, which will be adversely affected by the project, are being offered such small amounts of compensation. It appears as though far more money will be spent on consultants fees, management fees, legal fees and meetings in an endeavour to minimise the amount of compensation Thames Water has to pay out in compensation to the owners of properties, adversely affected by the tunnel, than they will actually be giving in compensation. It would be far wiser for the money to be spent on compensation to the owners of the land, so affected, than spending such a huge amount of money trying to justify not paying compensation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Antell
"I own my home   and have since September 1995. I am concerned that the tunnel will damage my property/land and that it will adversely affect my enjoyment of my land. It will be a huge inconvenience to me if my property/land is damaged and/or if the value of my property is in any way adversely affected. The Thames Tunnel plans show that the tunnel comes very close to the back of my house in Lillian Road. My garden backs onto St Paul's School field and then there is the river Thames. It is not necessary that the proposed tunnel comes so close to the back of the houses, the tunnel could be located further into St Paul's School field and nearer the Thames. I understand that Thames Water/one of its companies/or a company associated with Thames Water owns St Paul's School field, they should therefore be obligated to use their own land rather than my land or coming too close to mine. It is not necessary for Thames Water to build so close to the back of my house. They can build closer to the Thames, nearer to the centre of St Paul's School field. If there is to be any loss or damage or unsettling of the land or property as a consequence of Thames Water building the water tunnel it should be Thames Water that suffers this loss. Thames Water is a far wealthier company/organisation than I am or than any of the other people in Lillian Road. It is not equitable that the owners/occupants/interested parties of houses in Lillian Road are being or could be so adversely affected by Thames tunnel, particularly in view of the fact that Thames tunnel could be located slightly nearer the river Thames and further into St Paul’s School field and then not affect any of us or any of us to such an extent in Lillian Road. If Thames Water still want to build their tunnel so near the back of Lillian Road houses Thames tunnel should be required to give full compensation to the owners of the properties in Lillian Road. Thames tunnel is instead proposing a ridiculously small amount of money as compensation and this is so grossly inequitable in view of how wealthy the Thames tunnel organisation/company associated with it is and also in view of how much money Thames tunnel will cost. It seems hugely inequitable that the companies involved in this project are so wealthy and yet the owners of properties, which will be adversely affected by the project, are being offered such small amounts of compensation. It appears as though far more money will be spent on consultants fees, management fees, legal fees and meetings in an endeavour to minimise the amount of compensation Thames Water has to pay out in compensation to the owners of properties, adversely affected by the tunnel, than they will actually be giving in compensation. It would be far wiser for the money to be spent on compensation to the owners of the land, so affected, than spending such a huge amount of money trying to justify not paying compensation. "
Other Statutory Consultees
The Marine Management Organisation (The Marine Management Organisation)
"Please see attached representations document. http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DC9221-MMO-rel-reps-cover-letter.pdf http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DC9221-MMO-rel-reps-v0.5.pdf If these links do not open automatically, please copy and paste into your browser "
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Royal Hospital Chelsea
"Savills are instructed by the Royal Hospital Chelsea to advise on matters in relation to Thames Tideway Tunnel. Our client enjoys the benefit of an interest in land included within the application for the Thames Tideway Tunnel Development Consent Order (DCO). In response to your letter to our client dated the 16 April 2013, we are instructed to make a formal objection on the following grounds: (i) Insufficient information or explanation has been provided to enable proper understanding of why inclusion of the subject interest is required for the DCO. (ii) From the limited information provided to date there is no supporting evidence to demonstrate the benefits of using our client’s land in this specific location, as opposed to using alternative sites or as to whether any alternative methods could have been considered to reduce the impact on our client’s land. This information is a pre-requisite to assessing whether or not the benefits of the project outweigh any harm caused to those affected by the proposals. We reserve the right to amend, extend or withdraw this objection accordingly in due course. Please confirm receipt of this objection. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Transport for London (Transport for London )
" Transport for London (TFL) is accountable to the Mayor of London, who supports the Thames Tideway Tunnel Project in principle. The project does impact upon TfL’s assets, services and duties, and despite extensive discussions with Thames Water Utilities Limited (TWUL), TfL still has significant concerns about many aspects of the project. Most specifically:- 1. Thames Water’s proposed “capping” of potential liability to third parties arising out of the construction and maintenance of the project 1.1 The capping of liabilities is unacceptable, and is of concern in both the construction and operation phases of the project. Damage to TfL infrastructure has the potential to: • be extremely costly to rectify • cause significant disruption to transport services • put the travelling and general public at risk. 2. Protective provisions and requirements 2.1 TfL insists upon the insertion into the draft DCO of suitable protective provisions. These provisions are vital to protect TfL’s operational undertakings. The provisions cover, amongst other things, monitoring and physical protection of assets in order to mitigate the risk of damage. Discussions are taking place with TWUL but many issues (such as site specific requirements) have still not been resolved. Blackfriars Foreshore is a good example of where TfL still has substantial concerns which have yet to be addressed. See point 6 below. 3. Highway works, including enabling works to facilitate the main scheme 3.1 TfL is concerned that the submitted draft DCO seeks to “disapply” existing highway and traffic legislation and, unless a satisfactory alternative process is put in place, the effect this could have on our assets and ability to deliver our services and duties as a highway, traffic, and public transport authority. Enabling works are also expected to take place as early as 2015 and could have significant impacts on the transport network and its users; TfL wishes to clarify if such enabling works would also benefit from powers sought to be conferred by the DCO to exclude the application of normal highway and traffic legislation. Discussions are ongoing with TWUL, and TfL will make further specific representations as part of the examination process. 4. The proposed transport and logistics strategy 4.1 The Mayor has expressed a desire throughout the consultation process to maximise the reasonable use of non road transport methods. The potential for increased river usage needs to be examined in detail (both by site and category of freight) by TWUL, and TfL is maintaining a dialogue with them regarding this. However TfL is very concerned about potential derogations to their committed use of the river which, based on the experience of the Lee Tunnel project, we anticipate TWUL will be seeking, specifically:- • how will obligations be enforced? • how will derogations be agreed? • who will arbitrate in the event of a dispute? 5. The Transport Assessments (TA) 5.1 The TAs submitted with the DCO application have been assessed by TfL to see if the comments made on previous drafts have been considered. The TAs were then discussed with TWUL at workshops in late April 2013 and many issues remain unresolved. TfL hopes to undertake a further review of the TAs to see how much agreement can be reached with TWUL for inclusion in their Statement of Common Ground, and we await further information from TWUL to allow us to do so - including appropriate strategic and local traffic modelling. TfL will need to be assured that the effects on the transport network and its users are acceptable or can be mitigated. 6. Blackfriars Pier 6.1 The project seeks to provide for the relocation of Blackfriars Pier which is used by TfL for the purposes of operating river services. There has been discussion between TfL and TWUL regarding the replacement facility but no binding agreement is in place as to either the appropriate design or the specific location of the replacement facility and TfL is very concerned that no assurances have been received by TfL as to an approved design and methodology for the replacement facility which must be provided by TWUL to TfL and agreed by TfL before any work commences which affects the current operational facility. 7. Summary 7.1 The above are the issues of main concern to TfL but are not exhaustive. Further outstanding issues will be highlighted in our future written representations and other evidence (which we will seek to present jointly with the GLA where appropriate) and in the GLA’s Local Impact Report. TfL reserves the right to raise other matters of concern as part of the examination process. | "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victoria Buxton
"I live immediately adjacent to the land this work is taking place on. I am worried about a severe reduction in my quality of life over a lengthy period due to noise, dust, light pollution, vibration. I am concerned my privacy will be compromised due to new lines of sight being created into my property. I am worried about the environmental impact of the loss if the park as it is the only public green space of its type in this area and the loss of the plants and trees - which will take decades to replace to the standard they are now. I am worried about the increase of construction traffic in the area and the road safety and environmental impact this will have. I am worried about the noise of barges clanging together throughout the night making it difficult to sleep - every night for at least 3.5 years. I am worried about the affect on the value of my property. I am concerned about impact on local children's education given the use of the park by local schools and that there is no alternative for them to use. I support the SaveKEMP community campaign. I don't agree with Thames Water's plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impact on its local community is unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe Thames Water should have chosen the alternative at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community while still achieving the laudable intention of improving the river. I vigourously implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead and ensure the local community retains access to the only greenfield site available in the local area."
Local Authorities
Wandsworth Borough Council (Wandsworth Borough Council)
"Outstanding issues of concern The Council has previously responded to each stage of consultation undertaken by Thames Water. In addition it has also been in ongoing dialogue with Thames Water over the past 3 to 4 years, during the development of the proposed scheme. While the Council does not object to the principle of the scheme and welcomes attempts to clean the River Thames, its concerns relate to the detailed use of each site and the legacy remaining after the works. There still remains a number of issues that are unresolved at this time:- • The draft Heads of Terms, S106 agreement, requirements and draft Statement of Common Ground are still to be agreed. Thames Water has indicated that this will take place during the examination. The Council’s legal team will be involved in advising on the way forward. • There is concern regarding how future works will be managed and how the DCO, requirements, S106 etc will be implemented in the construction phase considering that two thirds of the Thames Tunnel Project will be delivered by an Infrastructure Provider (IP) who will be the Design Authority and who will have had no involvement in the process of consent. In considering this the Council suggests linking the agreed undertakings of the DCO to be delivered by the IP into the S106 agreement. The Council urge PINS to consider the impacts of the project if the DCO is not fully implemented by an IP and to consider how agreed undertakings can be secured. • Thames Water has identified that 24 hr loading of barges would occur for a temporary period. This would cause significant disruption for nearby residents. • There are concerns about the means of accessing the worksites and particularly how materials are brought in and spoil, materials etc are removed. • The Council seeks assurances from Thames Water that the integrity of the riverside wall and any adjoining structures will not be impaired. The Council seeks monitoring to be done as a requirement on the application, i.e. that Thames Water identify and the Council agree a monitoring strategy prior to the commencement of work. • There is a lack of clarity regarding the status of the plans submitted as part of the DCO. The Council is concerned as to what extent the illustrative maps show what would actually be developed. • Concern is expressed that adequate assessment has not been undertaken as part of the pre application work regarding the effect upon the Cringle Dock proposals and the wider effects that this may have on the development of the Nine Elms Opportunity Area. • Concern remains about the transport of spoil from the sites and materials to the sites. Thames Water has proposed that the river will be used as much as possible, especially in relation to the removal of spoil. However this is caveated by the choice of contractor and their preferred method of haulage, which is likely to be based on minimising costs. There is concern that this could lead to a far greater level of road haulage than currently suggested within the application. • The potential impact of the proposed flood risk mitigation work to King Georges Park via the ‘re-contouring’ is not supported and the mitigation work is still considered to be unresolved. • Parking arrangements are still to be agreed in order to mitigate the impact of loss of parking spaces at Glendarvon Road and Putney Embankment. • Details of final landscaping and planting at each worksite should be approved prior to works commencing. • Definition of maintenance – The Council queries and is concerned that the definition of maintenance set within the DCO includes remove, decommission, demolish and replace. Putney Embankment Foreshore • In the Section 48 consultation the Council responded to Thames Water regarding the location of the electrical and control kiosk. The Council’s preferred option would be to locate the kiosk in the disused vaults and considers that there may still be opportunity to do so. The Council still seeks this as the preferred solution. • Parking arrangements are still to be agreed in order to mitigate the impact of loss of parking spaces at Glendarvon Road and Putney Embankment. • As set out in the response to the Section 48 consultation the Council is unable to support the use of Glendarvon Road for use by heavy construction vehicles. • The issue of the unsuitability of nearby roads to cope with heavy construction vehicles is not just related to Glendarvon Road but the whole of the area around Putney Embankment Foreshore. The Council considers that this area would suffer from the use of heavy construction vehicles either because the carriageways are not wide enough or are heavily trafficked and therefore considers that the use of the river for transportation of construction materials is maximised. • There are still concerns about the final structure and its location in the setting of the listed Putney Bridge. However, Thames Water’s proposal that a feature is made of the University boat race stone is welcomed as this would enhance its relevance and relationship to the river and offers the opportunity for the structure to be a focal point at times like the Boat Race and other key river events. King Georges Park • In the Section 48 consultation the Council responded to Thames Water regarding the proposed ‘re-contouring’ flood risk mitigation measure which was agreed by Thames Water and the Environment agency. The Council has made it clear that the proposed depression was not acceptable. However, no alternative solution has been proposed and no response was given regarding the concerns the Council has with the proposal. The Council does not support the current Thames Water proposal for a flood risk management solution. • The Council also has reservations as to whether residents understand the impact of the flood risk mitigation solution upon the park as the detail has not been explained in the consultation material. Kirtling Street • As a result of the Thames Tunnel proposals there are changes required at the CEMEX site which could impact on proposed development for the adjacent Cringle Dock site. It is accepted that these proposals are a recent modification and are to an extent still developing. However, it is considered that no specific consultation has taken place within the context of the DCO on the impact the tunnel proposals would have on the Cringle Dock proposals. Account should be taken to ensure that there are no significant consequences for the delivery of a Cringle Dock scheme or the wider regeneration of the Nine Elms Opportunity Area. For information, a parallel planning application for the Cemex plant development is being made to the Council as the Local Planning Authority and is expected in late June 2013. Cemex have stated that their pre application consultation on this planning application is expected to take place during May 2013. • Nine Elms provides the most significant redevelopment opportunity in central London. The Opportunity Area Planning Framework as reflected in the Council’s Site Specific Allocations Document and the Local Plan Review identifies the potential capacity to provide in excess of 16,000 new homes and 20,000-25,000 new jobs in the Opportunity Area as a whole. The impact of the Thames Tunnel on this regeneration area will in our view be a material consideration as this is a Strategic London Opportunity Area and so we would be happy to invite PINs for a tour of the area so they can understand it fully. • The consultation material states that discussions were had with the riverboat community at Nine Elms Pier; however no evidence has been identified as to the outcome of those discussions and whether Thames Water’s response adequately addresses the concerns of the riverboat community. Heathwall Pumping Station • The Council considers that as part of the consultation for Heathwall Pumping Station Thames Water could have worked further to scope out the full range of options for integration with the wider regeneration area given the comments of the Council and developers of neighbouring sites. • A 6m wide riverside walk is sought as required by the Council’s adopted Local Development Framework. The path is expected to be heavily used with the development of both the Opportunity Area and the potential new footbridge as such every effort should be made to ensure it is suitable for future demands. Falconbrook Pumping Station • The proposed worksite is adjacent to a public library and community centre. Vehicular access to these facilities must be retained during the construction phase. • Investigation into whether permanent access to the facility can be maintained from York Road, thereby avoiding unsuitable vehicles passing through the adjacent housing estate. • The details of landscaping around the site and in York Gardens is still to be finalised. Dormay Street • A temporary bridge is to be constructed between the Keltbray site and Causeway Island. The Council would like to retain an option to keep this bridge in place after the Thames Tunnel works are completed, if it is identified that it provides operational benefits to the Council’s operational depot. • The Local Development Framework (LDF) sets out the Area Spatial Strategy for this area the details of which are shown on page 82 of the Site Specific Allocations Document (SSAD). This strategy envisages this location as a key stepping stone in a series of connections designed to create a new route from Wandsworth town centre to the Thames riverside along the line of the River Wandle. The strategy shows how Dormay Street could be extended north, via a new bridge, crossing Bell Lane Creek to Causeway Island and how a new riverside walk could be created along the south side of Bell Lane Creek from Dormay Street to connect to The Causeway. The works present the opportunity to enable the achievement of these key objectives and the Area Spatial Strategy should be followed. • A new riverside walk of 4m is laid out on the south side of Bell Lane Creek from Dormay Street to the Causeway and the proposed electrical and control kiosk is positioned to allow for the 4m riverside walk to continue which is welcomed. • It is important to ensure that lorry movements to and from the Dormay Street site do not conflict with vehicular movements from the Council’s depot or cause tailbacks that could obstruct the free flow of traffic in Armoury Way. Barn Elms • As part of the works Thames Water will be required to provide at their own cost new permanent changing rooms to serve the Barn Elms playing pitches. The specification of these is still to be agreed between Thames Water and the Council. • Assurances are sought that all the existing faculties on the Barn Elms Sports Centre are accessible throughout the duration of the works. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Winifred Figgures
"The proposed construction of the Rain Drain along the river Thames in this area of South Fulham will result in prolonged disruption of the environment in terms of air pollution, and traffic congestion. In addition some residents of the area have been warned that they may have to re-locate elsewhere once building starts on this massive project. No doubt there will be a huge rise in Thames Water chardges once building work on the Drain begins, a further financial burden on council tennants living in this area of South Fulham. There must surely be some other solution to the problem of keeping the Thames clean?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Hammond
"Chambers Wharf is not a suitable location for a main drive site. I live within a few meters of the east side of the site where the main tunnel shaft is planned to be situated. This location is far too close to residential buildings. There is only one route to and from the site and this will run past the local primary school onto an already congested Jamaica Road. I am worried that the lives of the local residents will be made intolerable. Work has already begun on building residential flats on the south side of Chambers Wharf. There will be 7 years of tunnel work then 2 more years of building residential flats on the north side. That adds up to nearly 11 years of continuous building work in this one small densely populated area. Being so close to the main drilling shaft I am extremely worried about the noise, vibration and sleep deprivation we will experience during the 3 years of 24/7 working hours. The local resident's and school children's health could be severely affected by the pollution from lorry fumes, noise and dust and some children will not know a life at infant and primary school without being exposed to these conditions. The tunnel, in my view, is not the best solution to the problem. In an age were we often suffer from both flooding and drought rain water needs to be collected separately from sewage. Thames Water have not adequately researched into alternative greener more sustainable solutions to solve this problem. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bill and Maeve Doherty
"I disagree with the application for a major construction site to be developed adjacent to my property at   , Tempus Warf, Bermondsey,   X. The following are my reasons: 1. This is a prime residential area and I object strongly to it becoming a major industrial construction site. This is not in keeping with good planning. When we purchased our property we did so in good faith that this area would remain a quiet, private, residential area. 2. If this application is successful our lives and finances would be seriously affected for the following reasons. A: Excessive and continuous noise pollution over a period of several years. B: We are a ground floor apartment directly adjacent to the proposed development and have serious fears in relation to the results of vibrations due to tunneling works. C: As this project would necessitate the movement of massive amounts of material. The levels of pollution in a quiet residential area would be totally unacceptable and dangerous. D: One of our main reasons for purchasing our apartment was privacy and tranquility. Up to this point we have been very satisfied on both counts, day and night. If this application is successful this will all change drastically and for the worse. E: The obvious dangers of major construction work in the confined area Tempus Warf are unimaginable. This area is lived in and used by the entire age spectrum, 8-80 years. 3: Our investment in this property was part of our planning towards retirement. It plays a major part in our finances both present and future. Please do not disregard the significant part this property plays in our lives."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brendan Bird
"I am a local resident and I wish to register as an interested party."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Robinson
"This Thames Water planning application is wholely inappropriate as such a massive industrial undertaking would be dangerous to children at tow schools in very close proximity, would create noise, vibration, pollution, sleep deprivation to a vast number of residents in this densely populated area over a very long period. The solution is inappropriate to the problem, while there are other far more suitable solutions which would not have such a devastation impact of so many peoples lives. Thames Water have only an interest in their bottom line and little or no interest in the negative impact on local residents and businesses."
Members of the Public/Businesses
C Carris
"Further information on the viability of alternative options is required"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr Craig Aston
"I write to you to express my strong concern at the proposed Thames Tideway Tunnel route through Shadwell and Limehouse. I believe that serious consideration must be given to the deficiency of open space in our densely populated borough. As a result, any drill shafts or ventilation points located on our parks or green spaces will have a devastating impact on the lives of the local communities. I oppose the following elements of the Thames Water proposals: King Edward Memorial Park Thames Water’s preferred route involves constructing a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) on the river foreshore in front of the King Edward Memorial Park. The park opens onto the Thames Path and river, and is a vital resource for local residents. Most local families have no access to a private garden so they rely on the park for outdoor space and the physical wellbeing of their children. This park is also of great historical importance, as it was opened in 1922 by King George V and has been one of the much loved open spaces of the borough, enjoyed by residents for nearly 90 years. However, Thames Water’s proposal to build on the foreshore threatens to hugely alter the park. The plans involve carving a path through the park for construction vehicles to access the site. This construction work is expected to last three and a half years and would cause immeasurable disruption to neighbouring residents and those who use the park. Even once the work is complete, the legacy of the Thames Tunnel for local residents would be a 15 metre tall ventilation column and a 10 metre tall building on the foreshore to regulate and filter the air in the tunnel. This would undeniably change the aesthetics of the foreshore. Currently, residents and park users are able to enjoy views of the River Thames from the park. However, if this route were to go ahead, the filtration column and building would be a huge imposition on the landscape. To make matters worse, the fumes from the filtration column would pervade the park, rendering the whole area unusable. Thames Water’s proposed route also affects a part of Narrow Street. This is a historical thoroughfare through Shadwell and Limehouse, containing rare examples of Georgian terracing. For the benefit of the borough and of London, we should be protecting this fine example of Georgian housing. Shadwell Basin, Limehouse Basin & School House Lane Sites Once again, these well used spaces are completely unsuitable as shaft sites for the Thames Tunnel. A campaign (Save KEMP) has been set up by residents to ensure that the few remaining green and open spaces in Tower Hamlets are not decimated by the Thames Tunnel. The campaign has identified alternative brownfield sites, including a cement plant on The Highway in Shadwell which would be a far more appropriate site for a drill shaft. It would also ensure that acutely limited open spaces in Tower Hamlets are not compromised. The campaign has made a clear, convincing and well-reasoned case for the alternative site which does not seem to have been adequately considered by Thames Water. I urge the Inspectorate to take full account of the Save KEMP proposal and of the impact Thames Water's proposals to use the King Edward Memorial Park foreshore will have on local residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Shinkins
"I oppose the building of the Thames Super Sewer Tunnel work in it current state where there will be a maintenance/access building created at the King Edward Memorial Park in Wapping, and the park foreshore will be closed for 6 years whilst the tunnel and the associated building are built. My opposition is due to creating a permanent site post construction as closure of one of the few green spaces remaining in Wapping and polution and disturbance created for the duration of the build. I have gather the information about this build from www.thamestidewaytunnel.co.uk."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dinah Morley
"I strongly disapprove of the damage that would be done to the king edward memorial park, the Thames path, the children's play area and the boat club, if this plan was to go ahead. I regularly use both the park and the path and can see that both will never be the same again. There is a suitable brownfield alternative which should be the solution of choice. Though inevitably disruptive for local residents the work will not result in irreparable damage to to our heritage. The park is a glorious local amenity. A number of memorial trees and benches are within it. The path is massively used during the day by office workers who need to get out for a run, and both are used by dog walkers and cyclists. In the face of such strong local opposition it seems inconceivable to me that Thames water should still be considering this option. It is riding roughshod over people who have precious few resources of this type when alternatives, which may require a bit more ingenuity, are available. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Don't Dump on Deptford's Heart
"Our campaign is against Thames Water's selection of the Deptford Church Street site as a CSO rather than alternative sites. We have grounds and reason to fight this and intend to show that the evidence collected by Thames Water is flawed. Thames Water has not followed their guidelines. • Firstly, we were not long-listed or short listed in the first place. Why not? • Secondly, in the back check process they changed their arguments for the site selections. For example. They discounted sites for their proximity to St Pauls and the impact on the need to part close Deptford Church Street in the first phase, but dropped these arguments in the second. Why was this? • Thirdly, we were not given the benefit of a phase 1 consultation. This would have allowed a detailed scrutiny of the Deptford Church Street site. The Borthwick Wharf site received a point by point written response of each argument. Why did we not receive this? Facts have been ignored or sidelined. • The environmental impact analysis for both our site and Borthwick Wharf was wrong in some critical ways. • At Borthwick Wharf they incorrectly included the impact on “Charlotte Turner” primary school. This is a school that is closed, with no plans for re-opening. • However, Thames Water is still evasive on how they are going to avoid an adverse impact on the two to three hundred children who are going to be affected by the noise and dust of the drilling. They have not explained how they are going to create a safe area for the children to be evacuated in the event of a fire. • At Borthwick Wharf they correctly identified one business that would have been affected for a short space of time with little risk to its viability. They fail to mention the great long term benefits for the AHOY sailing centre of this work going ahead. However, they ignored the adverse impact on the businesses of Crossfield Street and the dozens of businesses of Deptford High Street. • They ignored the use of Crossfield Street as a busy bustling staging post for a freight company and as vital parking space for the tyre and plumbing business. • They discounted the potential effects of the removal of parking and the disruption caused by the part closure of Deptford Church Street on the businesses of Deptford High Street. • They cite the impact on the residents of the million pound plus flats at Borthwick Wharf as a reason to move the site to Deptford Church Street however they ignore the social housing on Resolution Way. This is a campaign that says, “There is a better location”. This is a campaign that says, “We have been haphazardly treated at best and ignored at worst”. Borthwick Wharf campaigners were listened to. Even factually incorrect information was used to support their cause. We will not receive the benefits of this work. It will be the Children of St Joseph’s, the worshippers of St Pauls and the workers and residents of Deptford that receive the pain. Borthwick Wharf residents get the benefits of cleaner water and cleaner air. This is a campaign that says, “listen to our children, to our businesses and, to our residents. ”This is not our individual back garden; this is Deptford’s back garden. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edna Mathieson
"I understand that the work involved if carried out would be very close to residential area and that it would inevitably be a profound nuisance to local residents some of whom could be disabled, or older, people. Further it is not necessary to use Southwark - other areas would equally do. Other less invasive methods could be used - like offshore. But even this - not offshore Southwark. We have had industry ever since there was a North Southwark. It is now beginning to look a pleasant place to be. Let it remain like that."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Evangelino Tzannatos
"."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fiona Richards
"I have lived in Wapping for 24 years and regularly use the King Edward Memorial Park together with many others. This park is the largest green area in the vicinity and provides an opportunity for those living in flats to enjoy the outdoors in a safe environment I can understand the need for the work required but fail to understand why this green and well used site must be put out of use for so long. I believe that there are brown sites available"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Georgina Davidson
"As an affected leaseholder we wish to ensure that our property and rights are not detrimentally impacted by the proposed development and our rights in that regard are preserved. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Currell
"I live in Lillian Road and am interested in receiving information about how this project will effect my home and neighbourhood"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Juliet Kemp
"I am opposed to the application as a whole. I live within 100 metres of the site, and if this development goes ahead, it will materially affect my quality of life: - Noise from the site and from lorries visiting the site 24/7 for several years and during the daytime for even longer. I work from home, and care for my young son at home. This noise, in this hitherto quiet area, will significantly affect our daily lives. - I cycle as my main mode of transport. Nearly all my journeys involve Bevington St. The proposed lorry traffic will make this narrow residential street significantly more dangerous (as shown by the cycle accidents associated with the Shard and other construction projects). This will put me and my son at risk on our daily journeys. - The short-term and long-term pollution from the site is likely to affect the respiratory health of myself and my family. - The above problems also mean that the value of our house is likely to drop, perhaps significantly, affecting our ability to (for example) move away from the problems, something which would in any case distress me greatly as a Bermondsey resident for over a decade. I agree that the Thames sewage problem needs a solution; I strongly disagree that this is the correct solution, and I would urge that the planning application is refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Liberty Mosse
"I oppose the use of green land adjacent to Deptford Church Street as a work site for the Thames Tunnel. The Deptford Church Street site is in the centre of Deptford in the conservation zone. It is right next to St Joseph's primary school and working hours would coincide with school hours. As such, noise, traffic and dust would have an adverse effect on more than 150 children in an already disadvantaged area. Any respite afforded to these children by proximity to open green space would be lost and replaced by intrusive work space, sounds and smells. The site is also next to historic St Paul's church which could risk some damage to historically important walls and foundations. Worship would also be affected by sound pollution. I am concerned about the visual effects of vents on the vista of the church. This is a residential area and lies next to the high street. Deptford has been undergoing regeneration of late and to undertake works in the heart of Deptford, affecting houses, businesses, schools, churches and on one of few green spaces in this urban and economically deprived area would be a step in the wrong direction. There are more appropriate sites in Deptford, such as Borthwick Wharf, which would have far less of an effect on Depford and it's community. Traffic on Deptford Church Street is already congested, lane closures and increased HGV traffic would be catastrophic for local traffic. It would be better to use a site next to the river so barges could b used for construction works. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin McGinty
"I live at   X which is next to Earl Pumping Station where major works are proposed to be carried out.As i am a disabled person and as these works would be ongoing for 7 years,I consider that my quality of life would be reduced ,due to the noise,dust,movement of HGV traffic and other factors which this project would create there is also the fact that you may be installing a tunnel under the building in which i live in .I strongly object to this project being carried out. Yours Faithfully,Martin McGinty. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Hussey
"I wish to be made aware of any proposal that may impact upon my apartment, quality of life and journey to work. I am supportive of new infrastructure in London generally."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Reichl
"Owner of flat opposite to site at Wandsworth Bridge."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Andrew Clark
"The proposed work will have a detrimental effect on the community around the Thames path. Used by joggers, cyclists as well as the local community as a safe path this will no longer be the case. At the Chamber's Wharf site the small back roads will be filled with trucks and lorries effectively cutting off Rotherhithe and Bermondsey from Tower bridge. The Chamber's Wharf site may be technically brown field but is at the centre of a densely populated housing area with a local school. With the length of these works a generation of school kids from this area will be blighted by it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr I P Chattaway
"I, at this state purely wish to register as an interested party, wishing to retain full rights to get information about settlement risks, receive compenation in the event of a mishap, etc."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Jon Simkin
"I am registering my interest to reserve my rights in respect of any implications of the proposed development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Pamela Coate
"I am totally against any major reconstruction site in South Fulham. It will impact injuriously in terms of noise, vibration, pollution, anger to pedestrians and unacceptable traffic congestion for myself and my family and all the inhabitants and schools in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natasha Blunt
"I wish to register interest and then learn more to decide if I disagree or not. At this particular point in time I hear the outlet may be placed on the river very near to my home and by our residential development - the only property I own and which I have invested everything in to. Therefore a sewer outlet hardly sounds appealing and will likely devalue our homes, not to mention the health implications."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil McBennett
"I live in a community very close to the proposed site at Chambers Wharf. I am deeply concerned about the levels of noise, the 24 x 7 activity, the increased river traffic, and the nature of the proposed works (to build out into the river and thus narrow the river in that location.)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas & Linda Peck
"my wife and I are owners of a property potentially effected by this project, with a potential for impact on our living conditions, and on resale value of our property"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Davidson
"As an affected leaseholder we wish to ensure that our property and rights are not detrimentally impacted by the proposed development and our rights in that regard are preserved. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Rooke
"The drive site should be at Abbey Mills not at Chambers Wharf which is a highly residential area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Sheppard Skaerved
"To whom it may concern: I am writing to object to the planning application WW010001. This will, both in the short and long term, have a disastrous impact on King Edward VII park, both in the short and long term. In the short term, this park, which is a vital 'lung' for literally thousands of local people of all ages, will be unavailable. There are no equivalent facilities withing striking distance, so there is nothing to ameliorate this short term impact. In the long term, the proposed towers are disfiguring, as is the concrete structure into the river. The design for the vents, which is 'brutalist' in the extreme, are is in sharp and sad contrast to the grace of the ventilation shaft already in situ. But most unacceptably, a beautiful natural environment, wonderful trees, which are much loved by those of us who use the park regularly, will be torn away. There is no sensitivity to this problem; the combination of bad planning, insensitivity to locals such as myself and no consideration for the health and well being of the community makes this proposal unacceptable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Cottyn
"The impact of noise, dust, construction, and the sheer volume of vehicles on site will have a hugely negative impact on local schools."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Roy Spencer
"1. I support the plan in principle to provide capacity for future generations. But to keep the impact to residents and communities to a minimum should be absolute priority - these two goals can co-exist if some changes within this project are being made. 2. Chambers wharf 24/7 construction site is too close to residential and sensitive community amenities such as schools. The site location is not in keeping with the above statement and needs amendment. There can be dangers to children through increased heavy traffic. It is wasteful to use a residential site and an industrial site should be used rather than a residential site. The small overflow at Shad Thames can be remedied without a Super Sewer Connection. 3. Could the tunnel route instead of linking Chamber Wharf to Earl pumping station be instead from the King Edward memorial site to Earl pumping station, thus removing the need for Chambers Wharf as a major construction site altogether? Failing that... 4. Tunneling from Abbey Mills site (which has the advantage of being an industrial site) west towards Chambers Wharf would better control noise and spoil removal processing away from the residential Chambers Wharf area. This seems an obvious way to mitigate noise and nuisance. Why is this not enforced? Higher construction cost is probably the reason, but that is Thames Waters' problem to address. 3. Presented noise studies from Thames Water, are not helpful in understanding the number (by severity) of people that will be affected by noise and vibration. A map showing noise level contours during construction should have been prepared around all construction sites so that you can assess the real impact to all the local community, i.e. how many people are being effected to which extent. 4. Recent experience in the US for a similar scheme (Cleveland CSO project ) shows planners specifically/deliberately located major shaft / construction sites away from residential areas even if this meant longer tunnel boring runs. Reducing the number of major shafts and sites but using dual direction of bores needs to be made to minimize noise and nuisance impacts. 5. If during construction, noise levels exceed what is respectful to human living, then the local council should be empowered to shut the site down until remedial noise measures are taken. Proposals should not be allowed to have 24/7 working for months on end (29 months in the case of Chambers wharf) and above strategies should be used to prevent this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Rose
"The King Edward Memorial Park is an essential green space for recreation in a densely populated urban area with a high proportion of social housing. It should not be defiled. Residents should not be deprived of the facilities and its aspects. The Thames Path through the park is a public right of way which should not be obstructed"
Members of the Public/Businesses
T Chamberlain
"I am a leaseholder and have received notification from Thames Water that I will be directly affected by the compulsory acquisition of subsoil below my home. I am also a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tessa Ing
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP group. I regularly use the park for recreation and believe that the current plans will disproportionately affect the local community who do the same. This apples particularly to the short and medium terms but also for the long term. As there is a suitable brownfield site available I believe that, as a matter of principle, that should be the preferred option, rather than compromising a well-used greenfield site in an inner city area."
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Battersea Society (The Battersea Society)
"The Battersea Society accepts there is a need to reduce significantly the amount of untreated sewage entering the River Thames in London and a tunnel appears to be the most efficient way forward. At the same time the requirement for all new development to separate sewage from rainwater should be rigorously enforced. That should involve the use of sustainable urban drainage systems but these would not be sufficient on their own to deal with the problem. Our concerns about this project relate to the environmental impacts of the construction phase and the acceptability of the permanent surface structures. There are three proposed sites within Battersea. The most important is the proposed dual drive site at Kirtling Street but there are also proposed interceptor sites at the Heathwall and Falconbrook pumping stations. In addition two sites on the north bank of the river, Chelsea Embankment Foreshore and Cremorne Wharf Depot, face Battersea. In the construction phase our main concerns relate to • the hours of working • level of machinery noise and its range • the traffic generated by bringing in and taking away materials and workers • barge use, especially at night • disturbance to river traffic and to traffic on adjoining roads and the Thames Path • effect on the shoreline and flow of the river during and after construction Permanent buildings will need to be sensitively sited, especially with regard to the effect on views up and down the river. They will need to be of high quality and enhance their surroundings. This is a project to provide facilities for the next one hundred years: costings should be evaluated in the longer term rather than seeking short-term savings, which could be small in percentage terms. There is a splendid precedent in the fine buildings designed during the Victorian era. We are not recommending a pastiche of these but rather that buildings of a lasting quality and confidence be commissioned which future generations can admire as among the best of early twenty-first architecture. We also want to be satisfied that the long-term effects of the tunnel’s operation will not include smells or noise on the surface. There should be an evaluation of the footprint required for buildings and access at each site in order either to minimise the amount of land used or to set the buildings within open space which adds to, rather than detracts from, the civic realm. We should like to see a planning process developed for the design of individual sites which recognises the importance of these buildings to the civic realm. Possible ideas include design competitions, such as were undertaken in Docklands and/or a special review group to oversee the designs. Finally the Kirtling Street and Heathwall sites are within the Nine Elms Vauxhall Battersea Opportunity Area, which is undergoing comprehensive and rapid development. The design and phasing of the Tunnel project should respect these development plans and should not be allowed to interfere with their success. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom Heys
"There are alternative sites that can be used and which will still fulfil the aims."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Veronica Borgers
"I wuld like you considered the alternative route outlined by Mr Franc Vissers,   ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vickie Flores
"I have lived in Wapping for over 10 years and am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I run the local community website www.whatsinwapping.co.uk and have spoken to many local people in the course of writing articles since the proposal was first submitted and strongly believe the negative impacts on the community are excessive. There are many local families and children locally who live in severely overcrowded conditions and King Edward Memorial Park is the nearest thing these children have to a back garden to play in. It also hosts many community events and is home to a lot of local wildlife. There is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I would ask the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
West London River Group (West London River Group)
"The West London River Group (WLRG) is an association of amenity societies from Kew to Chelsea and is the Community Forum of the Thames Strategy Kew to Chelsea (TSKC). The London Plan para 4.183 recognises TSKC as providing an appraisal for this part of the Thames Policy Area and states '...these appraisals should be used as guidance...they should also be used to identify important riverside sites and determine the river related expectations for them...' Our interest in the application is the proposed legacy from the development in the TSKC area, its relationship with the Blue Ribbon Network Policies in the London Plan and with the policies and projects of TSKC. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Western Riverside Waste Authority (Western Riverside Waste Authority)
"The Western Riverside Waste Authority (WRWA) is the statutory local government body that arranges for the treatment of waste collected in four London Boroughs; Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth, Wandsworth and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. 500,000 tonnes of waste and recyclables per year are handled at its Cringle Dock and Smugglers Way Transfer Stations with the majority of the waste being transported, by river, to an Energy from Waste Facility in Bexley. WRWA is concerned that the proposed Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) development may significantly impact on the performance of its duties for the reasons described below. 1) Overloading the road network in the Kirtling Street area given the scale of TTT’s own works and other developments planned concurrently in the Vauxhall/Nine Elms area i.e. the Northern Line Extension, Battersea Power Station and numerous other major residential developments. The Authority also has concerns with the proposed barging operations (please also see point 3) but, if barge movements are restricted, this will result in even more road congestion. 2) TTT operations at Kirtling Street impede river access to the WRWA's Cringle Dock Transfer Station. 3) TTT’s river operations above Tower Bridge impinge on the Authority's own lighterage operations. All large barges using the Thames from TTT, the Northern Line Extension and Battersea Power Station will have to pass through the same arches, on the same bridges at that same state of the tide, as existing barge operations and this may result in health and safety issues and/or additional operational costs. Also some of the TTT sites extend out into the navigational channel and at Carnwarth Road no decision has even been made as to whether or not a jetty will be constructed. Transport implications only seem to have only considered on an individual, site by site, basis with no overall barging or road assessments carried out to take account of the cumulative effect of TTT operations and the impact of other developments on the same road and river infrastructure. Consideration should be given to TTT using powered barges from all or some sites (rather than towed dumb barges) and, if appropriate, stipulated in planning conditions. Sensitivity analysis also needs to be carried out on the impact on road movements if barge movements need to decrease – the loss of a single barge could result in 40 plus additional lorry movements. 4) The impact of TTT traffic at Carnwarth Road on Wandsworth Bridge Road that may affect road deliveries to and from the Authority's Smugglers Way Transfer Station. 5) The Authority is also very concerned with the scale of the permanent above ground structures planned at Kirtling Street - in particular the concrete batching plant. The TTT shaft means that the area occupied by the existing concrete batching plant is being approximately halved and this has been compensated for by a vertical design, producing a new batching plant which is very significantly increased in terms of both height and physical presence. Whilst this might be reasonable during the construction phase of the TTT it is not an appropriate design for a permanent planning permission as it will be out of keeping with other proposed development for the VNEB area. Indeed it could severely damage the potential to revitalise the surrounding area in the mid to long term. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Youssef Boussaid
"Please use an alternative site that has less impact on the citizens of this borough and on the environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Yvonne Alexander
"I disagree with the destruction of King Edward Memorial park in order to create the Thames Tideway Tunnel. It is a beautiful and much used park in an area of deprivation with few green spaces. It is one of the reasons I moved to the area. Most children in the area do not have outside space in which to play. To damage this local amenity, primarily because of financial considerations, would be criminal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Abul Hasnat Ali
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Aneita Lewis
"King Edwards is a park used by locals and visitors to London it should be kept in tact and the only work done on it should be to improve the facilities to attract more people to it. Not create something that will drive people away!"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs (Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs)
"we represent boaters that cruise the Thames for recreational use, we do not want the possibility of raw sewage to be discharged into the river in storm situations which could endanger any one coming in contact with the water. So in principle we agree with the plans, however we do have concerns about how the construction materials and waste are to be transported and the impact this will have."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Birgit Kolenda
"I object to the use of Chambers Wharf as a major receiving and drilling site or altogether being used for the construction of the super sewer aka Thames Tideway Tunnel as to its proximity to residential developments and particularly schools. In addition, the choice of site clearly demonstrates a complete disrespect for the community and people living here as 3-7 years of construction including the blockage of already narrow roads, the noise, air and sound pollution leave alone the planned 24/7 construction and drilling for a number of years will not only negatively impact this area during construction and redevelopment, ie the next 10 years, but could have a detrimental effect that this area might not recover from for years to come thereafter. I live in this area since 2005 and thoroughly enjoy it, I implore you keep it enjoyable for everyone living here, particularly my 16month old daughter whom I would like to not grow up on a construction site..."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Irving
"Please refer to my husband's representation (Stephen West)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Staffell
"I have an interest in the land on which my property, 304 Werner Court, is situated and request that it is ensured that the land and my property will not be damaged or negatively affected during or at any time following the construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Walsh
"I disagree with Chambers Wharf as a main drilling site for the Thames Tideway Tunnel. Having examined the documentation / assessments undertaken by Thames Water, in relation to Chambers Wharf, it is evident that there are different ways of constructing the project that would significantly reduce the impacts upon local residents,like myself, and our 3 local schools, all within less than 100 meters, of the Chambers Wharf area. For example, Thames Water already owns 26 acres of land at Abby Mills , initially identified in Phase One as the most suitable main drive site, to construct the eastern sector of the Tunnel. This site would not impact as adversely and negatively upon local residents and schools, compared to the more densely populated area around Chambers Wharf, which will have only one access route to the Tunnel drilling site (Bevington Street) and will require additional acreage, for construction purposes, via an extra 50 meter coffer dam built into the Thames. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Bowles
"I live in Flat 435 Anchor House which looks directly over the Cornwath Road Site in question. I am concerned by the amount of noise and air pollution that the proposed works would create. This would affect me and many other homes in this very built up area. The work would take a very long time to complete and I do not believe the benefits (which seem to me to be negiigible) justify the pain for the whole community in the next few years. I do not believe this application is in the public interest. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine F Barnes
"My concerns are noise, disruption, pollution, traffic diversions, construction vehicles and how my community will be affected. I am especially concerned about local residents and our local schoolchildren. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Eddison
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I DO NOT agree with Thames Water's plans for King Edward Memorial Park (a park that was given to people of the East End by the King .... it WAS NOT given to Thames Water). There is a viable alternative for the Thames Water super sewer and that is the site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate which is a 'Brownfield' site which I believe should be used rather than the 'Greenfield' site Thames Water wish to use. My wife and I retired and moved to live at Free Trade Wharf so that we could spend the remainder of our days enjoying the peace and tranquillity of living and overlooking the River Thames and being next to a lovely park which had been given to us and our neighbours by King Edward. If the current proposal goes ahead our dream of spending these later years of our life will have been taken from us. We will lose the use of our park for a precious 3 + years, we will have to put up with years of extensive construction noise and traffic and the lord only knows if we will still be alive by the time the trees, planted to replace the wonderful trees Thames Water will destroy for their work, will have grown back. Instead of being able to look out from bedroom onto an open view of the River and wonderful park, as we do now, we will be faced with spending the remainder of our lives looking at two 26 foot SEWER ventilation towers and have the prospect of putting up with odours from those towers. In addition, because this is the only local green space in this area, the many children, families and retired fold like us will lose one of the most precious facilities we have. I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review the brownfield Heckford Street site instead. Thank you "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Ballois
"I strongly support the Save KEMP Community Campaign and I do not agree with Thames Water's plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. It is my opinion that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review thus brownfield site instead. King Edward Memorial Park is the only local green space with loss of river front is Thames Water goes ahead with its plan. Disruption to local residents will be immense with duration of construction of at least 3.5 years (noise, dust, etc...) On-going maintenance requirements when work is done mean that the park will be subject to restrictions at Thames Water's pleasure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
David Nicholas Martin Starkie
"I have lived for 20 years at Elm Quay Court (EQC), a riverside building of 70 flats, only 70m east of the Heathwall site and approximately 200m from the eastern boundary of the Kirtling Street site. In spite of the large number of residences within EQC and its (very) close proximity to the construction sites, it appears to have been largely ignored in the documentation. For example, in the main non-technical environmental report, a word search indicates no mention of it and in Volume 14, Appendix G (dealing with noise at Heathwall) there is a single mention that it is "...located in relatively close proximity to the site". In this context, I have a particular concern regarding noise from site construction and operation. Specifically, mention is made that the Kirtling Street site will be operating on a 24 hour basis over a number of years and enclosures will be located over the shaft to minimise noise disturbance, but no mention is made as to whether the excavated material, sent by a conveyor over a jetty, will be loaded into barges on a 24 hour basis; whether the conveyors will be enclosed; what steps will be taken to minimise noise from the loading of material (the jetty top appears to be 6 metres above the barges, Figure 16.10); and whether tugs will operate at night-time. Noise attenuates only gradually over water and many riverside flats in EQC face west directly towards the jetty which will extend well into the river. (Flats at River Lodge and Icon Apartments on the north bank are also close to the jetty). Although construction work at Heathwall will take place during daytime (evening?), the building of the large cofferdam will be particularly disturbing for many at EQC, who are retired or, for other reasons, spend much of the day at home. Many flats on the quiet riverside will be within 100/150 metres of the cofferdam with no intervening barrier. One would expect these factors to be covered in the noise assessment but this is seriously deficient, in terms of measuring points and locations; the conduct of the baseline measurements, and the subsequent analysis, which rounds to the nearest 5dB (an exceptionally large margin bearing in mind that a decline of 6dB is equivalent to a doubling of distance from a noise source). The positioning of the recording equipment does not appear to accord with BS 4142; the photographs show microphones near walls and other reflective surfaces. Importantly, the recording equipment is immediately adjacent to busy highways (Nine Elms Lane, Grovesnor Road), none at the facade of EQC. Critically, no source measurements were taken on the quiet riverside of EQC (or proximate flats on the north bank) which, as outlined, will be affected by cofferdam construction and (night time) operation of the jetty. The disregard for EQC proximity to the sites and deficiencies in measuring noise, seriously prejudices its opportunities for inclusion in the compensation programme and could potentially bias the Inspectorates' judgement regarding the general suitability of the sites."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dawn Neeson
"King Edward Park is a vital part of the local community and brings together everyone. The walkway along the Thames is vitally important acces and would severely affect several local cycling, walking and football groups if lost. It is also an important tourist attraction to the area allowing access along the Thames Path to several historial riverside public houses. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diane Roome
"I am a Wapping resident and supporter of the KEMP group. I deplore the proposed use of the Park and the proposed towers on the foreshore. I very much regret the loss of facility that the project represents for local families and particularly for children. As a governor in two schools in Tower Hamlets and a former Headteacher I am acutely aware of the importance of the park as a learning and leisure resource for local schools and children. I urge Thames Water to consider other options."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gemma Heales
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Tattersall QC
"I reside at Free Trade Wharf. Although I am not always resident there I frequently work there and enjoy the peace and tranquillity which it offers. I am concerned about the noise which will result from the proposed works, particularly in the evenings. If I chose to let my property, which I may well do in the future, I am concerned that the rental value of the property will be adversely affected. I am concerned about the traffic which will be generated by using KEMP as a construction site. I am a supported of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don`t agree with Thames Water`s plans for KEMP as the impacts to the community are disproportionate, and unreasonably excessive, particularly since there is a viable alternative. Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial estate as it has a lower impact on the community. I do not think that Thames Water carried out a proper assessment of the impacts in the Park, Park users and nearby residents. I ask the Planning Inspectorate to review the use of this brownfield site. The planned promontory will be visible from the balcony of my flat and will be a visual eyesore. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Coupar
"In order to retain full rights to get information about settlement risks, receive compensation in the event of a mishap, etc. I register as an “interested party”"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Greg Hands MP
"on behalf of my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham, I continue to oppose strongly the Thames Tideway Tunnel coming to Fulham in the way described."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group (Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group)
"The Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group (HBG) works to promote,preserve and enhance Hammersmith & Fulham's (LBH&F) historic environment. The LP para 4.183 recognises the Thames Strategy-Kew to Chelsea (TSKtoC) as providing an appraisal for this part of the Thames Policy Are and states:. ‘…These appraisals should be used as guidance for DPDs, AAPs and development control decisions. They also include specific implementation projects for local authorities, the LTGDC, other public agencies or other organisations in a position to implement river related projects. They should also be used to identify important riverside sites and determine the river related expectations for them…’ It goes on to say para 4.184: ‘As part of major development proposals for sites with a Thames frontage consideration should be given to the need and desirability of having facilities to enable access to and from the river both for boats and for pedestrians.’ The Strategy has character analysis, policies and projects which are relevant to the Thames Tunnel proposals. The Borough's Riverside Walk Enhancement Report 2010 has detailed proposals for enhancement along the Riverside in LH&F. Our interest in the application is the effect of the development on historic assets and the legacy proposed from the development with particular reference to the Blue Ribbon Network Policies in the London Plan and with the policies and projects of TSKC. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hazel Tattersall
"I reside at Free Trade Wharf. I enjoy the peace and tranquillity it offers. I am particularly concerned about the likely noise which will result from the proposed works. I am worried that if I choose to let the property, which I may, I will receive a lower rental. I am concerned that about the volume of traffic which the proposed works will generate. I support the Save KEMP Community Campaign. There is another viable alternative : the Heckford Street Industrial estate. There has been no proper assessment of the impact on the local community and environment The view from my balcony will be adversely affected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
I A Moore
"I am concerned of the effect of the building of the tunnel will have on the foundations and building structure of Kingfisher house, Juniper drive. Also the effect when building the tunnel, tthe affect of noise and disturbance, nuisance on the lifestyle at Battersea reach. I am concerned at any building structures that will adversely affect the views, natural wildlife and the general life around Battersea reach. Also concerned at any overflow of sewage , unpleasant sights and smells. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Imogen Parmar
"The proposed Chambers Wharf development in a very densely populated residential area and near to a number of schools. The disruption to daily life of the many residents, particularly caused by 24 hour/day engineering works for 3 years, cannot be overstated. I believe Thames Water have investigated alternatives that have a much lower impact on the nearby residents. These should be explored fully and if they provide the for necessary engineering infrastructure, they should be adopted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Page
"The project includes insufficient elements of sustainable drainage to minimise the scale of the tunnel project (notwithstanding the lack of open space). A carbon intensive project of this kind, using many thousands of tonnes of concrete, should also be carried out with far more attention to CO2 reduction to offset the CO2 emissions resulting from the construction. This should be a given with infrastructure projects. Low carbon concrete should be investigated, and renewable energy deployed as 'offset.'"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jean Magnus
"The disruption caused by drilling and constant noise and traffic will decrease the quality of life for many residents in what is a densely populated area. The road is already subject to high level of traffic and construction traffic, with heavy haulage going to Jewsons and the Hitchcock and King Merchant Yards. Added to this, the new development due to begin on Carnwath Road and the ongoing developments means this will only added to the noise and pollution damaging the life of residents and their health. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jianhua Ba
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. My reasons are? 1. the plan will cause loss of the river front, the main attraction for park users 2. risk of odours from vents and perception of odours 3. construction traffic interferes with park user, commuters going to work and many runners. 4. loss of mature trees along current park riverfront."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Jenkins
"When the demolition of the previous Hays Wharf on the site was undertaken we had no disruption from lorries as all waste and recyclables were removed by the adjacent River Thames. Thames Water should be forced to use the main artery of London that they claim all this disruption is for the benefit of. We local residents do not want hundreds of lorries per week passing our homes and schools "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Lee
"- I disagree that the public consultation has been thorough or fair, as key aspects of the Acton tunnel size and route have been changed since then. We have not been able to discuss the changes with Thames Water. - I do not think that the undertakings in the application for the monitoring and assessment of possible settlement and damage to property are adequate or clear enough. The undertakings do not match up to those stated in an email that I personally received from Thames Water, and which I can show you. - I do not feel that the reasons, nor the risks, of the taking of the subsoil are clearly or adequately given, especially now that the route of the tunnel and it's limits has moved closer to, and underneath, our property. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Campbell
"I am a supporter of the Save Kemp Commuity campaign. King Edward's park is the only local green space by the river in the Tower Hamlets area; it is a fantastic park and used by 1000s of locals. My daugher practical lives there! There are better brownfield places which should be used. Please can Thames Water kindly listen to the local community! Thank you!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelly Smith
"King Edward Memorial Park is an important local amenity and an intrinsic part of the local neighbourhood. it is one of the very few river side pieces of greenery in this area, and as much it is important to preserve it for public use. It is also a historic park which having been established for the use of people in the area should continue to be put to this purpose. It is also an important access point for many to enjoy the river thames - important both for local residents but also visitors to london. I also understand if the park is put out of action for this work it will be for a considerable length of time - in excess of half a decade, and that a considerable amount of the foreshore will be dug up. i am very concerned regarding the ability to put it back to its original state after this length of time, and also that it might end up as an excuse for it to be turned into land for building flats on. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kishore Rajani
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laurent Dujacquier
"Given the alternative of the brownfield site at Heckford Industrial Estate, I do not see why bulldozing the park riverfront and erecting sewage vents has been retained as the first option by Thames Water. I do not recall a satisfactory technical answer that would eliminate the Heckford option (other than "we have a right to do as we prefer"). Tower Hamlets is one of the boroughs with the highest level of child poverty. I do think the local youth are going to feel let down and trampled over as this is going to severely reduce their green spaces. I have not met any local not opposing this project. Finally I am also very concerned about the long-term potential health impact of the supersewage vents as I walk through the park every morning. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Holbeche
"I wish to register my objection to the proposed use of Chambers Wharf as a construction site for the Thames Super Sewer. I am a resident of Axis Court, immediately adjacent to the site. While I recognise the importance of cleaning up the Thames I consider the proposed location as completely inappropriate. Having got their fingers burned at King Stairs Gardens Thames Water opportunistically purchased CW, and have subsequently ignored all objections from local people in this highly residential area about its unsuitability. The mitigation offered by TW is grossly inadequate. I am not convinced that any measures can reduce the potential impact of noise, vibration and other environmental effects to a level which would not damage the lives of local residents. Noise levels are likely to be intolerable and unremitting and are likely to seriously damage residents’ health and wellbeing. Given that the works will be continue for several years, including nearly 3 years of 24 hour operations, those of us who work from home would be forced to find alternative locations to work, while night-time noise is bound to make it very difficult to sleep. Those mitigation measures that are being offered are highly selective - how can TW be certain what the actual effects would be? I strongly object to TW seeking to remove my legal rights to sue them for noise nuisance. While much of the local protest has highlighted concerns about the risks to children in the local schools from large volumes of lorry traffic day and night, another general risk is the dust that will inevitably be a feature of the excavation and tunnelling process. As an asthmatic person myself, I fear the consequences for my own and other people’s health, especially that of children. TW have had no regard for the fact that when they have finished at CW, there would then be a further period of years of construction for residential development of the site. If that building work for which consent was given back in 2008 had been started, TW would have been forced to adopt a different strategy for building the tunnel. That is exactly what they should do - I understand that they could do it in ways which would much reduce the local impact, or even not require works in Southwark at all without foisting substantial negative impact on other people. I am more than disappointed at TW’s determination to press on with a scheme that may suit their engineering and financial convenience without a genuine care or concern for localities like mine which would suffer the very damaging consequences. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
M E Landy
"It is the view of the objectors that the scheme should not proceed in its present form. Objection-The Line of the Tunnel The line of the tunnel should be moved a few metres to the east to minimise the effect on private property rights caused by the necessary compulsory purchase of land. The plans accompanying the application indicate that: (i) The order limit and tunnel limit of deviation will pass under the rear of100 Abinger Road ('the property') and (ii) The tunnel will be substantially (about 75%) constructed under the rear garden of the property To build the tunnel on this line Thames Water seek an order authorising it to compulsorily purchase 111 square metres of the subsoil under the property. The plan accompanying the application shows that the rear garden of the property ('the 100 garden') is opposite the rear gardens of houses in Emlyn Road ('the ER garden'). The garden of 100 Abinger Road is approximately 14 metres long from the rear wall of the house to the rear fence of the garden. The gardens in Emlyn Road are visually estimated to be about 30 metres long. Between the rear boundaries of the garden of 100 Abinger Road and the ER garden is a strip of land which is about 17.5 metres wide. This strip of land is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Historically the strip of land was part of a single track railway. It has been used for many years as allotments which are managed by the Emlyn Leisure Gardens Association. The tunnel which has an internal diameter of 6.5 metres could be constructed entirely under the 17.5 metres width of the allotments. The advantages of constructing the tunnel under the allotments would be: (i) Thames Water would not need to compulsorily purchase any of the subsoil under the property (ii) The risk of ground settlement to the property would be reduced because the line of the tunnel would be further from the built part of the property (iii) The only buildings on the allotments are sheds without foundations so there is no risk of damage to any building on the allotments from ground settlement (iv) So far as the objectors are aware there have been no objections from those interested in the allotments to the construction of the tunnel under the allotments. Consultation has proceeded so far on the assumption that the tunnel would be constructed under the allotments. Objectors' Proposal The application should not be approved unless Thames Water alter the line of the tunnel so that it runs entirely under the allotments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
M. de Jager
"Myself"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcolm Hamer
"The route you are trying to use should be changed so that it is well away from the houses and gardens of Lillian Road. The route could and should follow the line of the towpath and then would not impinge on our property."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael de Souza
"I disagree with the proposed act. Altering the only green park area with the local community with thousands of apartments, residents and children seems unreasonable, especially since there is a viable alternative in an industrial estate, which seems more appropriate "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Keep
"As a lessee of property adjoining the land, I am registering my interest to get information and claim compensation in the event of any mishap endangering or damaging my property"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Lear
"This Park is one of the few green open spaces in the area and as such it is a great amenity for young and old. To lose this for the length of time proposed and the subsequent blighting of this green and peaceful riverfront haven will be a disaster. The alternative brownfield site should beused. Large private corporations should not be allowed to ignore the rights of local people just because it is more convenient and more profitable for them to do so,particularly when an alternative site is available. My interest is that I was born and brought up here. I still retain a great interest, because as a City Guide I lead frequent history walks for groups, who love this Park."
Non-Statutory Organisations
HML Hawksworth Ltd (HML Hawksworth Ltd) on behalf of Montevetro Management Company Ltd
"The Montevetro building sits on the riverside opposite the Cremorne Works site. The building owners are responsible for the section of river wall in front of their building. The owners in that building have concerns regarding: a) the impact of noise and dirt pollution during the construction phase of the works b) Visual impact of the completed works on the view from their apartments c) That the works may change the flow of river currents which may cause damage to the river wall in front of Montevetro. There may be other issues that arise during the course of the examination on which Montevetro would like to comment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr E J Randall
"I am a member of the Thames Anglers' Conservancy who will represent my views at the later stages. 1. I fish the Tidal Thames and find the fish kills due to pollution unacceptable. 2. I believe the Thames Tunnel is necessary to help prevent such incidents occurring in the near future. 3. The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; British taxpayers face the prospect of hefty fines if this is not addressed. 4. The health risks for me as an angler when fishing the tidal Thames are unacceptable. The plastic flushed items accompanying the sewage litter including cotton buds, condoms, sanitary applicators and so on are quite disgusting. 5. A cleaner river is of benefit to the whole community, not just river users, for it enhances the reputation of the country as a whole."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr G Pluck
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs J Pearce
"I wish to object to Thames Water application to build their tunnel from Chambers Wharf because the site area is surrounded by residential homes and schools. The impact of having a construction site that would warrant HGV and other machinery to filter along Bevington Street/Chambers Street causes health and safety concerns for primary school children accessing their school. Many tourists and general working public use Chambers Street as a key access link to keep alongside the river, avoiding using public transport. I believe Thames Water should use an alternative site where it would cause less disruption in noise and dust to a residential area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ms Kirsi Pyy
"The plan currently doesn't have adequate and legally defined relocation, rehoming and compensation solutions for those people occupying the land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Wells
"I am in opposition to the proposed scheme as as a resident of Wrayburn house, which is adjacent to the Chambers Wharf site and directly above the Greenwich tunnel. I am concerned about both noise and dust in the area and additional lorries passing our block and the local schools. I am also concerned about block movement as the tunnel passes beneath our block and during the demolition of Chambers wharf we had cracks open up as a consequence. I find the idea of tunnelling so close and beneath residential buildings to be deeply worrying."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Payal Saxena
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I am two months pregnant and this is nearest open and green space to where I reside. I would be deprived of a clean green space to walk around, if the said work goes ahead. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter de Haan
"The site selected is unsuitable as it is an urban site with high density of dwellings and schools.noise and the high concentration of traffic for many years is my concern.there is an alternate site which can be used which is an industrial site namely Abbey Mills where there will be little impact on the population ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Erftemeijer
"I supprt the Save KEMP Campaign and believe that Thames Water should have cosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate. This would reduce the impact on the local community: * loss of the use of the park's many recreational facilities during construction * long term impact on park due to loss of trees and visual impact of proposed ventialtion towers on river front."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Magnus
"The road is already subject to high level of traffic and construction traffic, with heavy haulage going to Jewsons and the Hitchcock and King Merchant Yards. Added to this, the new development due to begin on Carnwath Road and the ongoing developments means this will only added to the noise and pollution damaging the life of residents and their health. The disruption caused by drilling and constant noise and traffic will decrease the quality of life for many residents in what is a densely populated area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Melville
"I object to the use of Chambers Wharf for this project.Viable alternstive sites are available and the works here would blight the area for many years."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rukeya Khan
" I am a supporter of the save KEMP community campaign. I disagree with Thames Water's plan for King Edward Memorial Park as the impact on the community are unreasonably excessive, especially as there is a viable alternative. I believe Thames Water should have chosen the alternative brown field site at Heckford Street as it has a lower impact on the community and I would ask the Planning Inspectorate to review the brownfield site instead. I have grown up using "Shadwell Park" as it is the only park in the area. My children also use the park. In shadwell we do not have gardens or many green spaces. I want the park to remain in its present state for my children and all the children in the area. My children love looking out at the Thames and playing in the park. If the Thames Sewage works were to go ahead we would lose access to a vital green space for a number of years which is unacceptable to my family and is certainly not good for the community. If the brown field site was used our community would not lose our park. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Saloni Malalgoda
"My husband and I have been residents of Wapping since 1998 and have 2 dogs. KEMP is integral to our community life with our local friends as well as a place to exercise our dogs. Loss of 2 tennis courts, children's playground, football area, Thames path and reduced park space, the impact to us personally, a safe outlet for kids & youths and reduction in tourist foot traffic causing impact to local shops will be severely detrimental."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sandra Melville
"I own and live in an apartment just up the river from Chambers Wharf. I strongly object to the use of this site when there is a more suitable alternative for the drive site at Abbey Mills. Thames Water has accepted this as a viable option and it is not opposed locally. Chambers Wharf is a developing residential area with schools and a local park close by. The 7-year disruption to local domestic life will blight half the childhood of each child living in the vicinity."
Non-Statutory Organisations
St George Wharf Residents Association (St George Wharf Residents Association)
"In order to retain full rights to get information about settlement risks, receive compensation in the event of a mishap, etc. the St George Wharf Residents Association registers as an “interested party”"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen West
"My wife and I own 63 Deodar Road, which runs down to the Thames. As has been pointed out to Thames Water several times by Chris Poll and others, the river wall which runs along the bottom of the Deodar Road gardens (including ours) is very sensitive to work nearby. Thames Water previously promised to execute "party wall agreements" with riparian owners on Deodar Road, but appears to have reneged on this agreement. Therefore, please include the river wall at the end of our garden within the "sphere of influence" of this project, pay for and carry out surveys before, during and after the works (until 10 years after completion), and compensate us in full for any costs incurred as a result of the works. Please also ensure that the route of the tunnel is moved at least to the centre of the Thames, i.e. through the central arch of Putney Bridge, or better yet towards the north bank which has no history of instability in its river wall. I object to the works because of the risk to the river wall, and also because of the severe disruption which will occur to Putney and to the roads around our house (particularly Putney Bridge Road, Putney Bridge, Putney High Street, Lower Richmond Road and Upper Richmond Road), i.e. the air pollution, traffic congestion, noise and general negative impact to quality of life. All transport for this project (eg for spoil, construction plant and material, etc.) should be by river, not by road. For all of this disruption involved in building this giant septic tank, we will not even gain a solution to the supposed problems, as sewage will still end up in the river and the tunnel will be insufficient to meet any tighter rules the EU might impose in the future. Thames Water should have listened to all those pointing out that other cities in the world have not followed this approach to river pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Smith
"Please refer to the Relevant Representation submitted by Free Trade Wharf Management Company Limited."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Sutton
"I own the leasehold of a property (my home address) on St James's Rd and am concerned about the impact of this development on an already busy junction between Jamaica and St James's Rds. I anticipate dust, noise and large construction traffic will cause distress to local residents and potentially be unsafe in a densely populated community next to local schools."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Ray
"Hardly any green space is left and this is an area largely used by a number of residents and tourists visiting the area. There is less and less history being maintained in our beautiful city, and this is yet another example of bad planning and unnecessary detriment to our environment. Why this has to destroy an area of public use and green space when there is an alternative is beyond me. The Thames Path is a piece of history and should be retained in its current format. City families have less and less outside green space to use - please keep this for them."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Creekside Education Trust Ltd (The Creekside Education Trust Ltd)
"The Creekside Education Trust is leasing land at the 14 Creekside site and owns a building on that land directly above the planned connection tunnel from Deptford Church St (Coffee St) shaft to the Greenwich Pumping Station exisitng underground sewer. Whilst supporting the need for the tunnel and the works, the charity requires essential safe managed access for school groups and visiting public to Deptford Creek via its site at 14 Creekside. Disruption of this will grossly impact the charity income and viability and trustees and staff must be engaged at Phase 2 of the consultation, as must the site owners Southern Gas Networks. River impacts on Deptford Creek for navigation, sediment, flow, ecology and structures should seek advice from the charity if changes or river uses are proposed. The area has been recently designated a conservation zone by Lewisham Council and design and heritage, waste, transport, noise and vibration and air quality are all important , as are the sensitive locations with listed buildings and structures.Please use the Creekside Education Trust address as the public contact details ONLY if that is possible.I would prefer my own address to not be made public but welcome relevant material from Thames Tunnel related sources."
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Fulham Society (The Fulham Society)
"As noted above, I am the Chairman of The Fulham Society and we are particularly concerned with Thames Water(TW)'s proposal to sink one of its main shafts for the |Tideway Tunnel in Carnwath Road, Fulham, SW6. Over the many years of construction, this will create massive disruption, inconvenience (particularly to local schools), noise, dust, and increased traffic in an already crowded area. There are several other perfectly sensible - and cheaper - alternatiives to the construction of a tunnel under the Thames. These have been pointed out to TW on numerous occasions but they have completely ignored them. This Australian owned company has behaved in a high-handed way the main costs of which will fall on ALL of the hard pressed water consumers in the Greater London area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom Adamski
"Hi, I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I disagree with Thames Water's plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts on the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. The King Edward Memorial Park is one of the few parks in the area and me and my wife use it frequently for running, playing tennis and other outdoor activities. Development to the park would mean we'd loose access to river front at the works would ruin the tranquillity of the area. There are no other such parks in walking distance from where we live therefore both me and my wife are strongly against the development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tristan Haley-Burrows
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. I regularly use the park for walking, contemplating life whilst looking down on the river, jogging or walking dogs. It is also a great place for kids (with not many other green areas in the vicinity for them). "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shirley Passmore on behalf of Wandsworth Society
"The Thames Tunnel project starts from a flawed concept. We believe it is not the most cost-effective, timely, or comprehensive solution to the problem of sewage in the Thames. It is not integrated with any other water management scheme or related to other environmental issues. For a start it is based on the position before construction of the Lee Tunnel that will remove 50% of CSO discharges, and before improvement from the SWT upgrades. It is also based on the false statement that 30m tonnes of sewage currently enter the Thames annually from the CSOs. This was never the case. The sewage content is estimated to be between 10-20% of any discharge, 80-90% is always storm water. When the Lee Tunnel is complete TW estimates that by 2021, even allowing for population increase, the discharge will be around 18m cubic metres, and this will contain no more than approximately 4m cubic metres of sewage. Sewage in the Thames comes from the inability of the Victorian sewers to cope with the amount of rainwater that is allowed to flow into the drains. The solution is to ‘slow the flow’ by a variety of ‘green’ sustainable drainage systems. A storage tunnel is not a solution, it is an attempt to hide the problem. Neither the Government nor TW has properly assessed green infrastructure for an integrated water management scheme. This application cannot be considered in isolation of the alternatives. The threatened EU fines will have to be paid for pollution damage so far, and these will continue until the tunnel is completed. On the other hand, just the start of an on-going green water management scheme would immediately show a long-term solution is in place and stop all future fines. The tunnel does not address sewage discharge from Mogden. Updates here will improve the situation but Mogden remains a significant cause of oxygen depletion in the Thames, from its treated sewage as much as the untreated discharges. Untreated discharges from pumping stations contain a high % of sewage unlike the discharge from CSOs. The carbon footprint of the manufacture of construction materials has not been evaluated, nor has the continual energy-use for managing the storage tunnel. The environmental damage to the Thames foreshore, to local environments by years of disruption, by the loss of green open space (thus increasing the discharge of water into the drains,) and by the distress caused to some hundreds of individuals in Wandsworth alone (who are listed as being able to claim compulsory purchase compensation) is unacceptable in the light of alternative solutions that would not cause damage but would enhance the environment of both the Thames and for communities. The cost is astronomical and the final figure a complete guesswork.and this must be a factor in the application’s assessment. The Thames is classed as ‘moderately’ clean now (on the scale bad, poor, moderate, good) it is likely, because of Mogden and other non-tunnel related contamination, to remain ‘moderate’ after the tunnel is built, but the improvements resulting from SWT upgrades and the Lee Tunnel make the Thames Tunnel extremely hard to justify. A storage tunnel is not a solution to the problem of too much surface water flowing into drains. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wandsworth Society (Wandsworth Society )
"The Thames Tunnel project starts from a flawed concept. We believe it is not the most cost-effective, timely, or comprehensive solution to the problem of sewage in the Thames. It is not integrated with any other water management scheme or related to other environmental issues. For a start it is based on the position before construction of the Lee Tunnel that will remove 50% of CSO discharges. It is also based on the false statement that 30m tonnes of sewage currently enter the Thames annually from the CSOs. This was never the case. The sewage content is estimated to be between 10-20% of any discharge, 80-90% is always storm water. When the Lee Tunnel is complete TW estimates that by 2021, even allowing for population increase, the discharge will be around 18m cubic metres, and this will contain no more than approximately 4m cubic metres of sewage. Sewage in the Thames comes from the inability of the Victorian sewers to cope with the amount of rainwater that is allowed to flow into the drains. The solution is to ‘slow the flow’ by a variety of ‘green’ sustainable drainage systems. A storage tunnel is not a solution, it is an attempt to hide the problem. Neither the Government nor TW has properly assessed green infrastructure for an integrated water management scheme. This application cannot be considered in isolation of the alternatives. The threatened EU fines will have to be paid for pollution damage so far, and these will continue until the tunnel is completed. On the other hand, just the start of an on-going green water management scheme would immediately show a long-term solution is in place and stop all future fines. The tunnel does not address sewage discharge from Mogden. Updates here will improve the situation considerably but Mogden remains the chief cause of oxygen depletion in the Thames, from its treated sewage as much as the untreated discharges. Untreated discharges from pumping stations contain a high % of sewage unlike the discharge from CSOs. The carbon footprint of the manufacture of construction materials has not been evaluated, nor has the continual energy-use for managing the storage tunnel. The environmental damage to the Thames foreshore, to local environments by years of disruption, by the loss of green open space (thus increasing the discharge of water into the drains,) and by the distress caused to some hundreds of individuals in Wandsworth alone (who are listed as being able to claim compulsory purchase compensation) is unacceptable in the light of alternative solutions that would not cause damage but would enhance the environment of both the Thames and for communities. The cost is astronomical and the final figure a complete guesswork, and this must be a factor in the application’s assessment. The Thames is classed as ‘moderately’ clean now (on the scale bad, poor, moderate, good) it is likely, because of Mogden and other non-tunnel related contamination, to remain ‘moderate’ after the tunnel is built, but the improvements resulting from SWT upgrades and the Lee Tunnel make the Thames Tunnel extremely hard to justify. A storage tunnel is not a solution to the problem of too much surface water flowing into drains. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
A Zatorski
"I am deeply concerned that the proposed works will have a negative and long lasting effect on the communities that live nearby. I live on the river, at hermitage Moorings, just across from the site. The increased river traffic, noise, wash from vessels, will greatly effect myself and family where we live."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Abraham Thomas
"I support the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adnan Tufail
"This is the only local green space. The proposed admission will result in a significant loss of the river front - not an insignificant thing when most of the river front has been lost to private developers and is not accessible to the tax paying public. Large volumes of HGVs will result in loss of life to cyclists (this is a relatively traffic free zone, particularly for young cyclists on the weekends, when work is proposed). Parents on the school runs will be particularly affected. Mature trees will not grow back within my lifetime to any significant degree, are not planned for in the proposed concrete structure, and are a rarity in this very modern, highly developed part of London. Permanent large, visually unattractive sewerage vents will permanently detract from this area, which had slowly developed a community feel to it over the years - quiet weekends, with families and local pedestrian traffic and groups of determined tourists enjoying the riverside in the 'real ' London, as opposed to the frenetic, overly commercial westward route down to the South Bank. This negative effect will slowly impact on local businesses as people unfamiliar with the area are unlikely to persist far down the unattractive alternative route along the highway. The proposed development does not give back the green space when complete, but further erodes the space."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adolfo Montoro
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don’t agree with Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alexa Perrin
"I do not think the super sewer should be built in King Edward Memorial Park. It is the most used park in this area and is the only one that offers activities such as football, tennis, bowling and a playground. It acts as a community hub for both poor and wealthier communities in the area and creates social cohesion as well as good relations between differing ethnic groups. The park also prevents anti social behaviour in the area, keeping children off the streets and engaging them in healthy activities. This in turn eases all police services and helps make everyone feel safe in the area. The park helps prevent obesity and promotes a healthy lifestyle offering those living in the surrounding urban areas a rare space to exercise. This in turn eases NHS services from dealing with related problems. The park offers a space that people can utilise for social activities free of charge and at a time of economic downturn this is invaluable particularly for the neighbouring estates whose benefits are being cut. The park also offers a gateway from Limehouse to Wapping and many people use it as a route to work, either walking or running or picking their children up from school. Closing it for three and a half years will mean that users will have to walk The Highway, a busy polluted dual carriageway. It is completely nonsensical to close the park for three and a half years when a nearby brownfield site can be used that has no such grave effects or repercussions. The matter simply boils down to it being less expensive to build the super sewer in the park than the brownfield site. Could pay cuts of all those working on the project remedy the problem? Alternatively perhaps the millions of misspent taxes (our money) could be better channelled or you could wait until you have the right amount of funding. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alun Evans
"I am relatively new to this part of London but now live near the Thames in Fulham and am aware of the need for the tunnel to cope with sewage demands much greater than can properly be provided for by the existing system. In principle I am in favour but need to learn a great deal more about the project before coming to a definitive conclusion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amina Akhtar
"Heavily Disagree with Thames Water : 1. Only green/park in the surrounding area 2. Used by locals for various activities including exercise 3. Only contact with a natural environment 4. Used by families to create memories 5. Amazing view of the river/canary wharf 6. Peaceful and serene 7. Calming and breathtaking"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keystone Law (Keystone Law) on behalf of Andre Levy and Mairaide Ann Levy
"The target property is not directly required to secure the implementation of the relevant scheme or project. There is insufficient justification for the acquisition of this part of our client’s property in the public interest. Implementation of the scheme would give rise to significant material impacts adversely affecting residential amenity: e.g. traffic congestion and noise. The applicant has not demonstrated that these impacts would be adequately mitigated to acceptable levels either through the essential scheme design, or via other control measures. There is insufficient technical analysis of the likely impact of tunnelling on local ground conditions. It is therefore not possible to discount the risk of ground instability impacting on the structural integrity of the property. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angela Murphy
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I don't agree with Thames Water's plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impacts to the community are unreasonably excessive, especially considering there is a viable alternative. I believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. I personally use this park at least 3 - 4 times a week all year round. It would be a great loss to have it so destroyed and the view marred by the proposed works."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Angling Trust (Angling Trust)
"The Angling Trust is the representative body for game, coarse and sea anglers in England. There are thousands of anglers who depend on a clean and healthy Thames estuary for angling. The estuary is a nursery for marine fish species such as bass and flounder which is important to support maintenance and recovery of stocks in the North Sea and English Channel. The reasons for proceeding with the TTT are as strong as ever, namely: • Anglers from across our region love to fish the tidal stretches of Thames and further downstream the estuary is an important saltwater fishery. We have seen regular fish kills, some of which have involved tens of thousands of fish of numerous species, in recent years. • London’s Victorian sewers, built for two million people, can no longer cope. The city’s population is now eight million and rising. In a typical year up to 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage discharges into the River Thames after as little as 2mm of rainfall. This shameful and unnecessary scenario has created unacceptable environmental and public health hazards. The Thames and Lee Tunnels and associated improvements will tackle nearly all this pollution. • The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; British taxpayers would face the prospect of hefty fines, if the tunnel is not built. • It can take up to three months for sewage that has entered the uppermost reaches of the Thames Tideway to reach the sea. The CSOs discharge not just urine and faecal matter into the river, but also nearly 10,000 tonnes of litter every year including toilet paper, wipes, sanitary towels, condoms, cotton buds and other ‘flushable’ items. The hidden dangers include harmful pathogens, viruses and bacteria, such as E coli, hepatitis A and faecal streptococci. • London’s sewerage system, founded over 150 years ago, has served the capital well, but urgently needs more capacity to meet the needs of modern-day London. Although the River Thames is capable of supporting greater wildlife diversity and has won recent awards for its improved condition these were contingent on the Tunnel going ahead. Without it the river will remain an environmental and public health hazard at times of CSO discharge. • Currently sewerage discharges occur more than once a week on average and in wetter years, like the one we have just experienced, the discharges can increase threefold. There are 30 rowing, canoeing and sailing clubs that regularly make use of the tidal Thames and they have to endure wading and boating through sewage debris and human faeces. • Literally thousands of people use the Thames foreshore every day. Hundreds of thousands of tourists cruise the river every year. A cleaner, healthy River Thames is essential, not just for anglers, but for the prosperity and global reputation of London and the country as a whole. The Thames Tunnel will ensure that the excellent progress made to clean up the river will not be reversed. We do not believe that there is any viable alternative to the Thames Tunnel. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Coward
"I am a South Fulham resident and strongly disagree with the use of the wharf at Carnwarth Road as one of the main drilling sites for the proposed Thames Tideway Tunnel. The proposed Carnwarth Road site is in the middle of a densely residential area which also includes six primary schools and two senior schools within a mile of the site and many small businesses. Such groups will be profoundly affected by the noise, pollution and increase in traffic by the use of the Carnwarth Road site 24 hours a day six days a week during the construction phase. Additionally, the local road infrastructure is already heavily congested and would not be able to cope with the construction traffic resulting from the proposed scheme. As a local resident I have first hand experience of the already heavily congested roads in the area especially surrounding the Carnwarth Road. I understand from the numerous amounts of literature surrounding the Thames Tideway Scheme that improvements in technology and research into 'greener' alternatives means that the scheme proposed by Thames Water is no longer the only option or indeed the most viable option for dealing with rain water run off."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Donoghue
"1) This is a vital and historical area of green space that is used all year round by all members of the local community, providing peaceful social cohesion for individuals, families sports activities and commuting on foot or bicycle; all of which will be disrupted unnecessarily because there are proven alternatives to the scheme being proposed. 2) Business interruption: I am in the process of establishing a business in Wapping and this will severely impede the desirability and access to the business by potential clients. 3) Noise levels and traffic disruption over the period of construction will be prohibitive for individuals and businesses: 21,000 HGV movements on our local streets and construction traffic. 5) other alternatives - that have been put forward - that focus on brown field solutions should be the priority form a planning, social and financial perspective. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Aynsley Jardin
"I understand that the Thames tunnel is likely to run under my road. I would prefer this not to be the case, but if it is I would like to better understand the implications and what steps are being taken to make sure there are no issues for inhabitants of Lillian Road in the future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Kneller
"Planning Inspectorate reference: WW010001 - I am a member of the Thames Anglers' Conservancy who will represent my views at the later stages. 1. I fish the Tidal Thames and find the fish kills due to pollution unacceptable 2. The Thames Tunnel is necessary to help prevent such incidents occurring in the near future. 3. The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; British taxpayers would face the prospect of hefty fines, if the tunnel is not built. 4. The health risks for me as an angler when fishing the tidal Thames are unacceptable, the proposed tunnel will prevent the vast majority of these appalling sewage incidents occurring once a week on average, which will also help the environment. 5. A cleaner river is not only of benefit for me as an angler, but it is also has benefits for all those that use the river on a daily basis (such as boaters, rowers etc.), as well as enhancing the reputation of the country as a whole. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Silverman
"There is no cause for TW to disrupt the lives of Southwark residents as they can drive from their own plant at Abbey Mills Stratford with its extensive land and low residential density -which was their own preferred situation in phase 1 of the consultation "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Watson
"Living in the building that is closest to the sewer site I have grave reservations that noise from trucks and machinery will make living here incredibly unpleasant and even at times unbearable. I have heard that drilling and boring could have serious consequences in terms of vibrations that will make living in the flat intolerable. There are also serious concerns for the local community,particularly the school children who live here in terms of safety from large vehicles and air quality issues from increased number of high polluting vehicles, let alone noise affecting sleep and children's focus when in the class room. Relocation can't be a serious option for the numbers of people who live here, especially the elderly, infirm and those with young children that need to access the schools. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine A J Wogan
"The plans look very well thought out but I find the information provided by Thames Tideway Tunnel on their website very unsubstantial and not clear. I reserve the right to make future representations regarding the above property and that at Rivermead Court, Ranelagh Gardens."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Egan
"My children and I use this green space frequently. This is a very valuable asset to our quality of life. There are very few areas in London where you can ride or walk with children for long distances uninterrupted by traffic (there are almost no cycle paths in London that are acceptably safe to a parent of children under the age of 12 years) except along the river. The presence of HGVs, industrial waste, high volumes of traffic, and the unavoidable pollution will mean that we will avoid this area for the duration of the project. This will reduce our patronage of local businesses. Many people in my local community (SE1) use the north side of the river for long walks or runs or for commuting, as the south side has no continuous river access path. The loss of King Edward park for a very significant time period will deter us from this. This was the case when the river path at South Bank was closed at Blackfriars Bridge and most of us have not gone back to using the westward route to the South Bank. Mature trees cannot be easily replaced. The proposed concrete promontory are visually unattractive and out of keeping with the local area. There has been a significant encroachment on the green space available to the local community, which is unacceptable. The loss of play and sport areas in this area of London is a great pity, as the local boroughs inland of this park are some of the most deprived in London and have very little access to pleasant, safe, outdoor space."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Overton
"As a local resident I believe that if Thames Water's proposal to construct a super sewer in the land known as the King Edward Memorial Park is approved and proceeds, it will have a severely detrimental impact on the environment and local Eco-system and detrimentally impact the welfare and quality of life of local residents and of residents of the East End and Tower Hamlets more generally. I am therefore strongly opposed to the grant of the relevant planning permissions. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chandy Thomas
"Concern over the construction traffic involved and local disruption and pollution. Also concern over the effectiveness of the Air treatment chambers for the Carnwath road ventilation shaft."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Passmore
"I live opposite the proposed Tunnel works and I am concerned by the serious potential for noise pollution that I understand the project involves over an extended and sustained period."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Creekside Forum (Creekside Forum)
"In principal we support the project, but we have grave reservations regarding the location of works in the Deptford area. Having attended a number of public meetings with Thames Water officials it is clear that TW has failed to properly evaluate alternative site to that proposed in Deptford Church Street. In particular it is clear that TW officials have only a superficial knowledge of how works could be safely and cost effectively carried out at the alternative 'Borthwick Wharf' site in Deptford on the Thames foreshore. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Mannion
"I don't agree with Thames Water's plans for King Edward Memorial Park as the impact to the community is unreasonably excessive, especially when you consider that there is a viable alternative site at little to no extra cost. Whilst I agree with the need for Thames Water's project, I strongly believe that Thames Water should have chosen the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it clearly has a lower impact on the community and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Dinsmore
"I appreciate the need for this project and that it is part of government policy, however, there is an alternative, brownfield site which should be considered. King Edward Memorial Park is a small patch of green on the banks of the Thames in east London. It is teeming with people 365 days of the year. For this area to be closed for a period of years during construction and then marred by the final construction is of considerable detriment to the community and the area. I run along the banks of the river several times a month and particular enjoy the park area. I hope I can continue to enjoy that pleasure uninterrupted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Harvey
"1. I do fish the Tidal Thames and find the regular pollution unacceptable. Anglers from across our region we love to fish the tidal stretches of Thames and further downstream the estuary is an important saltwater fishery and nursery area for sea fish stocks in the North Sea and English Channel. We have seen regular fish kills of hundreds of thousands of fish over recent years, often following summer storms during periods of low flow. The Thames could be a 'super highway' for fish species with a cleaner river encouraging more species to thrive. The current sewage problem means a high level of suspended sediment which coats the important spawning grounds severely affecting fish recruitment. 2. The Thames Tideway Tunnel is recognised as the single best solution to cleaning up the Thames. All other alternatives I have seen whilst having some merit are not fit for purpose. SuDs should be an important part of London's infrastructure but will not anywhere enough to stop the sewer overflowing and poisoning the river. To consider the separation of the sewers in London would mean 20 or 30 years of work and estimates range to around 60 billion pounds and even then will not solve the problem. 3. The sewage discharges breach the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; British taxpayers would face the prospect of hefty fines, if the tunnel is not built. 4. The health risks for me as an angler when fishing the tidal Thames are unacceptable, the proposed tunnel will prevent the vast majority of these appalling sewage incidents occurring once a week on average, which will also help the environment. 5. A cleaner river is not only of benefit for me as an angler, but it is also has benefits for all those that use the river on a daily basis (such as boaters, rowers etc.), as well as enhancing the reputation of the country as a whole."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Lester
"The proposed use of Chambers Wharf is in an area of high density residence and by Thames Waters own admission is bound to affect the life of many hundreds of residents foe up to seven years. Also very close to the site are three schools. Seven years of drilling and construction will affect the lives of a complete generation of school children. Imagine the effect on their academic achievements. There are several other sites which are considerably less densely populated. Why on earth can't these be used?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Nicol
"I have lived in Fulham for many years and am a member of hurlingham club. My son also owns a flat in Rosebury road. I consider that this part of Fulham is already heavily congested and has a great deal of development with Sainsbury's and other developments in the area. I also do not think that Thames water have made their case nor have they listened to local residents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denise Dorling
"I disagree with Thames Water's intention to use Chambers Wharf as the main drive (drilling) site for the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The area is densely populated and using it as the main drilling site will have negative and detrimental effects on the local community. The proposed area is very small, so small infact a coffer dam will need to be built 50 metres into the river. There is only one access road into the site and this runs alongside Riverside Primary school. There are three schools within 100 meters of the site which will be effected by noise, dust and increased traffic - children's health and wellbeing being particularly vulnerable. The constuction is scheduled to last for 7 years which includes three years when work will be carried on 24/7: this level of distruption with the associated noise and pollution will have a devastating effect on l health and wellbeing of local community. There are alternatives, alternative ways of constructing the tunnel or an alternative main drive site. In Phase One of the consultation Thames Water identified their 26 acre site at the Abby Mills pumping station as suitable for the main drive site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edouard de Guitaut
"The possible disruption so close to our home"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine McKenzie
"I am a regular user of the Park and I support Save KEMP Community Campaign. I do not support Thames Water's plans for KEMP since they will adversely affect the park and the local community. There is a viable alternative on the brownfield site at Heckford Street which will have a much smaller impact on the park and I wish to urge the Planning Inspectorate to consider the alternative proposal at Heckford Street. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elena Moreno
"I am a supporter of the SAVE Kemp Community Campaign. I'd like to strongly encourage you to consider the alternative site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate as it will have a lower impact on the community. I do not agree with the negative impact that the Thames Water plans will have on the KIng Edward Memorial -it will directly affect my communte to work and one of my favourite spots to spend the weekends (one of the few green spots in this area). My heart sinks at the thought of 3.5 years of disruption, noise, and loss of this part of the river front! The resulting plans, I believe also have not been thought out carefully, again impacting on a favourite local park -destroting tress, etc. Yours faithfully, Elena"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ellen Shipley
"The proposed project, in my opinion, will benefit only the foreign owners of Thames Water, and will blight the Fulham waterfront for years to come. Added to that, there is a proposed perpetual charge to support this, which will hit every Thames Water customer. And again, that money will go abroad. There are other proposals to clean up the Thames that are less expensive, less invasive, and aren't proposed by foreign companies that won't be impacted in any way by the disruption this would cause if it were to go forward. Perhaps the French company would like to clean up the Seine instead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Louise Burrows
"I am relocating to Wapping and plan to establish a business there. This work will disrupt both my private enjoyment and use of the community park and also be potentially off-putting for clients because of the disruption and eyesore caused. There is an alternative plan which uses a brownfield site which should be pursued instead"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fiona Davis
"I own a flat at Battersea Reach and feel I should be in a position to be kept informed about the status of the application and any risks or implcations for my prperty and it's value."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Florian Kuehn
"My wife and I own the Flat in Free Trade Wharf and I believe that we will be effected by the building and drilling of the sewer in the King Edwards Memorial Park and therefore we believe that the value of our property will be going down substantially. Our property is less than 100 metres from the building side. I also believe that after the building of the sewer our property value will be still effected due to the fact that it will be next to a sewer mantaince side. I have also the opinion that the park and the shore will be changed for ever and that the park is very important for the Tower Hamlet comunity especially for the younger generation which are using the park for playing for example football or tennis."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Flying Fish Theatriks Ltd (Flying Fish Theatriks Ltd)
"I am a supporter of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. I am strongly opposed to Thames Water's plans for KEMP and find the whole idea of destroying the park in order to build a super sewer shocking and appalling, especially considering there is a viable alternative that has a lower impact on the community, Heckford Street Industrial Estate, which is a brownfield site - an obvious choice, for anyone with the tiniest ability for logical thought and the tiniest amount of care for the community! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Freda Graf
"I have two major areas of concern about the impact on my home of the proposed construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel: - (i) Construction phase (ii) Long term impact on my property Construction phase 1 The noise and vibration that will occur 24 hours a day under my property 2 Noise and pollution generated by vehicles on the river and road 3 Pollution, especially dust generated by the building works 4 Visual impact on the river by the destruction of the King Edward Memorial Park 5 The construction of building works required by the project, especially on the river 6 Length of construction phase Long Term impact The tunnel is immediately below my home, thus I am very concerned about the future impact. What subsidence will occur? When will the subsidence manifest itself? Thus I will have a long-term fear of a problem with my property created by the tunnelling. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Friends of St Katharine Docks (Friends of St Katharine Docks)
" I am writing in support of the Save KEMP Community Campaign. The Friends of St Katharine Docks are concerned that the impact of Thames Water’s plans for King Edward Memorial Park on the community, especially park users and local residents, may be unreasonably excessive and would encourage Thames Water to seek a viable alternative, such as the brownfield site at Heckford Street Industrial Estate, which would have a lower impact on the community We would therefore ask the Planning Inspectorate to review this brownfield site instead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gabby Kuehn
"We currently reside at Free Trade Wharf and our property will be affected during the construction work and thereafter. Our property will reduce considerably in value and I do not believe that it will ever recover as it will be next to a maintenance site for the sewer. The shore will never look the same again. The park is used on a daily basis by a number of different groups in the community and it is a very important Green Space which should not be destroyed for such a project. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Lewtas
"I am concerned about the implications of the new tunnel as there may be damage and repercussions which are not indicated or imagined. I wish to be protected and fully compensated should unexpected difficulties occur."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eileen O'Flaherty on behalf of Gerard Robinson
"There has been much attention afforded (and rightly so) to the affect that the works will impact on King Edward Memorial Park. However, it appears that little consideration has been given to the effect on the residential development at Trafalgar Court, Wapping Wall/Glamis Road (total of 68 flats). This develolpment will be directly affected by the proposed works, which I am are strongly opposed to for a number of reasons. Namely, 1. Wapping Wall is a Conservation area and the King Edward Memorial Park is of archaeological interest and extremely valued by the local community. 2. There will be a vast increase in the flow of heavy duty construction traffic as the new access for construction vehicles will be via Glamis Road (normal working hours would be from 08h00 - 18h00 - with additional hours as necessary. This will impact significantly on the Trafalgar Court development. 3. It appears that cyclists using the Thames Path would be diverted to the site access path with a consequent risk of accidents. 4. The residents of Trafalgar Court (and neighbouring developments) will suffer from a lengthy period of pollution from dust, dirt, fumes, oil, and noise. 5. The proposed excavation of soil from the pier area immediately outside of the Trafalgar Court development is of particular concern. We (the development) are responsible for the upkeep AND the relevant H&S aspects - if an excavation of soil proceeds what "safeguards" do "we" have in the event of a litigation claim. 6. It appears that two "prospective" sales have fallen through because of the Thames Tunnel project. What compensation will be provided to those owners who wish to sell in the interim but are precluded from doing so because of the "Tunnel" project ??? It appears that there is an altnerivate (brownfield) site, at Heckford Street. Why can't this be the alternative ? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Owens
"As I live near to the proposed project I would like to be kept informed of any developments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Stevens
"After trying to participate in the Applicant Thames Water's public consultation since December 2010; meeting with them at Justine Greening MP's TTWG and Chairing her Technical Subgroup, joining Thamesbank, forming an Independent Expert Team of leading experts in water science, engineering, economics, law, politics and design, to offer independent expertise to Thames Water, my key areas of concern are; 1. The Application does not satisfy the Planning Act 2008, particularly in not including an adequate public consultation in compliance with the Aarhus Directive. 2. As the 'in principle recommendation' to use a Tunnel was made in 2007, before an integrated water management ('bluegreen') solution combining 'best technical knowledge not entailing excessive cost' was tested for London as a whole, the public, government and the European Court were misled into accepting the Thames Tideway Tunnel as a 'Decision', taken without a 'bluegreen' comparator for cost benefit analysis to comply with the UWWT Directive and CJEU Judgment in Case C-301/10. 3. Prof. Ashley, author of the 'SUDS' Appendix E now in the Application, has concerns, written in his paper ' The role of the civil engineer in society: engineering ethics and major projects'. The danger is that the examining engineers of the planning inspectorate will be ethically compromised into granting a consent order when, as the Applicant Thames Water has consistently held, no 'bluegreen' study has been carried out for London to enable water bill payers to make informed decisions on the cost benefits of comparative solutions in compliance with the Directive and Judgement. 4. Without a 'bluegreen' study for London it is not possible to adequately assess to scientific, engineering and ethical standards, the cost benefits and compliance with UK and EU law of the Applicants' Tunnel proposal in the public interest, as opposed to their private and commercial interests. It appears from available evidence that the cost benefits of 'bluegreen' technologies for water, air, health, biodiversity, heat stress, environment and property values, flooding, drought, crime and