Supersewer plans go to Planning Inspectorate
Dear Kempers, it has been a while but do not worry, we have been busy as usual, just behind the scenes. We have kept meeting Thames Water once a month and, more importantly, we have kept working with our Council and Officers to ensure that all is being done to protect our beloved park.
Pope’s retirement irritates Phil Stride
We were waiting for Thames Water to submit their blasted and ill-conceived project to the Planning Authorities. They had a few problems (which is always good at least for morale) but they are finally ready. The plans will be submitted on 28th February 2013. Momentous date… I bet Phil Stride is peeved the Pope also chose that date to retire, how inconsiderate of His Holiness!
We need you to write in
So what is going to happen? The Planning Authorities will have 28 days to consider the plans. We will make a representation and explain why Thames Water’s choice of site in our area is so gobsmackingly dumb. Tower Hamlets will also be appealing as they share our view that the plans are just rotten.
But we also need you to write in, even if it is a short email or letter, and make a PERSONAL representation. Sorry, no pre-cooked letters, it has to be your own views to really count.
This is the email address to send your comments to AFTER 28th February but within 28 days: email@example.com
At this stage we are only asking for people to write to the planning inspectorate to raise concerns about the way Thames Water have managed the public consultation process.
The Planning Inspectorate may disregard representations which are vexatious or frivolous, or deal with the merits of matters of national policy, contained in National Policy Statements (NPSs). NPSs have already been the subject of consultation and parliamentary approval and it is not the role of the examination to debate the merits of national policy.
So if you think they should use an alternative greener technology to clean up the Thames, write to Government, the Planning Inspectorate don’t care. The Tunnel will be built because it is Government policy to build it (at the moment).
Thames Water did not adequately consult with residents
All we are arguing is that Thames Water did not adequately consult with us and did not consider our views properly therefore the scheme as submitted is not acceptable.
The Planning Inspectorate may also disregard representations which relate just to compensation for compulsory acquisition (rather than the justification or need for such acquisition).
Phil Stride admits numbers were wrong.
Remember how Thames Water scared us, well, tried to, saying that from a transport point of view, the Heckford option would put a lot more pressure on the Highway than their foreshore plan? They waved scary statistics under our noses and submitted them as part of their consultation material. Well, guess what? Phil Stride has admitted that the numbers were wrong.
After numerous requests put in by us and also by TH officers, Thames Water finally yielded and gave us the transport data for both sites. It took a loooooooong time to get them and it is no wonder why.
They have no admitted that there is not much difference between the two options.
It is what we always said: the foreshore option would generate more material to transport away and would need more materials to arrive to the site.
Yes, if they used the foreshore some of it could be transported by river (“COULD” being the keyword there!).
Brownfield Heckford better than Greenfield KEMP
But the fact remains that working at Heckford would impact the Highway only very slightly. And that’s not considering the fact the current traffic generated by Heckford would be eliminated. Therefore the slight increase would actually be compensated by that.
So here you go, another proof that the consultation was a joke and totally biased.
We will soon call a public meeting and other community actions so please stay tuned and get back into fighting mode!