Forum Topic

What's going on here is the usual tacky game of party politics, but it's one from which the long-suffering residents may be able to benefit if we are quick and exploit it ruthlessly.Rogerson is trotting out the official line because he is the Under Secretary on whose watch this is happening, or not happening as is the case in this instance.  His unresearched and empty claims are chanted idiot-style from departmental briefings, which in turn I have no doubt emanate from the offices of Thames Water's utterly shameless PR department.Mary Macleod, whose party itself has hitherto at best been silent on the subject of Thames Water's contempt for its neighbours, is enjoying a rare opportunity to position herself as a champion of the residents because the Under Secretary is a Lib Dem and the war of words between the two coalition parties is growing daily as the election approaches.I must admit I am enjoying the spectacle, not least because of the way in which Mary's sudden volte face has left substantial helpings of egg on the faces of John Todd, Brad Fisher and other of her colleagues who have taunted campaigning residents and who now find their champion has, for the time being at least, gone native.All we need now is for Ruth Cadbury, the Labour PPC, to come along and tell us how she has always supported the residents in its issues with Thames Water over Mogden - and believe me she will, with a straight face (remember you read it here first) -  and we will have the complete set.I am confident MRAG will be using the period approaching the election to the maximum advantage of the local community.

Phil Andrews ● 4070d

River Thames (Cleanliness)Oral Answers to Questions — Environment, Food and Rural Affairs9:30 amMary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth, Conservative)What recent assessment she has made of progress on improving the cleanliness of the River Thames.Dan Rogerson (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)We are making good progress on cleaning up the River Thames, particularly in tackling the increasing raw sewage overflows into its tidal stretches. Thames Water will reduce overflows when the Lee tunnel becomes operational in 2015 and through upgrades to major sewage works across London. Once operational in 2023, the Thames tideway tunnel will capture almost all the remaining sewage overflows into the Thames in London.Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth, Conservative)Thames Water’s Mogden sewage works in Isleworth is the second largest of its kind in the UK. The company has pumped raw sewage into the Thames 23 times in the last year, and residents have struggled with odour from the plant for many years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss a better way forward?Dan Rogerson (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)I understand that Thames Water has spent about £30 million to address odour issues at the site and that Hounslow borough council is regularly monitoring it, but if issues remain for local residents, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss them.

Tim Henderson ● 4071d

Well done for your persistence on this Steve; if nothing else you have managed to create a very interesting political dynamic in the approach to what will locally be a hotly contested general election.Brad Fisher is of course not the only Conservative to scoff at the problem he helped to create and taunt those who are trying to doing something about it.  John Todd has persistently been antagonistic towards the residents' campaign, not only with his constant barbs on these forums but by even turning up at the High Court hearing against Thames Water in which he clearly, if presently inexplicably, seemed to consider he had an interest.If Mary is serious about taking up the plight of thousands of her constituents who have suffered for years at the hands of the Thames Water management at Mogden this will render John Todd and others of his ilk "out of sync".  It will be interesting to see whether they change tack, or continue to undermine her.I would assume Mary has been appraised of the fact that Ruth Cadbury, her rival in next year's poll, was the cheerleader for Thames Water and its application at the infamous Sustainable Development Committee (now Planning Committee) meeting at which approval was granted.  The Tories could make much of this if only they were honourable enough to accept that they made a mistake at that meeting by supporting her rather than trying to brazen it out by continually going head-to-head with residents over the matter.I would like to discuss with you the possibility of MRAG and the ICG substantially raising the profile of this important issue over the affected area between now and the start of the election period, in a way which publicly acknowledges all assistance, and non-assistance, given by either major party between now and that time. Maybe in the spirit of the dialogue which I have proposed is opened John Todd might also wish to discuss his own position with Mary Macleod?

Phil Andrews ● 4080d

Had a most constructive meeting with Mary Macleod MP today.The link provided by Tim Henderson regarding  Mogden discharges to the  River Thames was most helpful  if not quite astounding.  Thames Water’s Director of Environment has assured  Hounslow Council and concerned residents that following the upgrade of the site the discharge to River would be reduced to “approximately once a year.” Tim’s link shows a different story – a complete failure by Thames Water -27 discharges from Mogden to the River Thames from 1 Jan 2014 to 29 Nov 201461 discharges from Mogden to River Thames  from 1 Jan 2013 to 29 Nov  2014 Considering that discharge to River should only happen when all 8 Storm Tanks  ( 6 uncovered and 2 covered) are filled to capacity, it is not rocket science to calculate how many times  ALL the storm tanks have been used in the last year.Thames Water had also assured the Council that the storm tanks wouldn't be needed more than 6  times (12 days) a year if the upgrade went ahead. It is therefore not surprising that the odour from the storm tanks has caused an almost continual stench to hang over Hounslow, Twickenham, St Margaret's and Whitton.It is mind boggling how Brad Fisher, after agreeing to expand the site without ensuring all the tanks were covered,  walked away from the problem and refused to hold Thames Water accountable. I do sincerely hope that John Todd will recognise the facts of the problem, and how his group was conned, and that he will now work closely with Mary Macleod and residents and  hold Thames Water accountable.

Steve Taylor ● 4080d

“I didn't think it had rained much today, but I think that that makes it 23 discharges we have had so far in 2014. What did the project promise ?” Thames Water’s director Richard Aylard said “approximately once a year.” Extracts of the minutes hereunder.“At a meeting of the Sustainable Development Committee held on Wednesday, 4 March 2009at 7:30 pm at the Committee Rooms 1 & 2, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, HounslowWith the permission of the Chair, Richard Aylard spoke on behalf of the applicant, Thames Water. He advised that the application was for environmental improvements to the water quality in the Thames and that the proposals met planning policy guidance and legally binding discharge consents, set up by the Environment Agency.Mr Aylard explained that the flow into the works was not constant and more arrived at the works after it rained, which had to be treated, stored or discharged into the river rather than allowing it to back up. The proposal would provide a new treatment stream, which would increase and improve capacity by approximately one third for better treatment of the sewage.The proposals would not bring any more sewage to Modgen and discharge into the river would go down to approximately once a year.Mr Aylard noted that concerns had been raised about the use and odour from the storm tanks.He advised that the proposals would bring the storm tank use down considerably. He recognised that odour was a real issue for the Council and residents and advised that it was a key issue for Thames Water as well. Mr Aylard gave his absolute commitment that the development would be odour neutral and there would be no additional mosquito problems. He advised that there were agreed protocols to provide tough planning conditions and Thames Water’s commitment would mean that they would seek additional funding from Ofwat to do further work if needed.The application included a 10% margin for population growth. Although this was not expected and did not mean that any more sewage would be diverted to Mogden, there was always a margin allowed for population growth.Mr Aylard advised that he understood local concerns and that, although there were a number of places that the decision could be made, Thames Water would prefer to deal with the Council and follow through on S.106 commitments. He advised that Thames Water could not delay because they had to meet the discharge standards by 2012.Mr Aylard advised that he respected MRAG’s views, but felt that these must necessarily be coloured by an unrelated civil action claim, which would take a number of years to resolve. He advised that he respected Barry Edwards, who he noted would be speaking also and referring to his own concerns about limited sewage capacity at Mogden. He noted that Mr Edwards was a London Waterways Commissioner and Chair of the River Thames Society, who had sent a letter in support of the development.In response to Members questions, Mr Aylard advised that, as far as the usage of the storm tanks was concerned, four times per year was their best estimate and there was a safety margin of six to allow for variability in the weather. The modelling had shown that they would be needed four times per year, which was an improvement on the 20 plus times that they were currently being used.Councillor Dakers asked why the Thames Tunnel could not be extended to Mogden and used for overflow. He also asked, in terms of the S.106 agreement, if there would be a mobile unit monitoring odour away from the site.Mr Aylard advised that the Thames Tunnel was designed to intercept combined sewer overflows. The Tunnel was only a long thin storage tank and it needed to be a certain size to work properly. The furthest the tunnel would go upstream was to Chiswick Ait. Heavy rainfall and sewage would go into the Tunnel and on to Beckton, where it was pumped out. The Tunnel could not be extended because the cost benefit analysis did not allow for the extra four miles to Mogden. Mogden was also a tributary into the Thames, providing clean water at other times of the year. The other issue was that the tunnel would not be finished until 2020 and Thames Water had to deliver improvements to Mogden by 2012.”

Steve Taylor ● 4082d

I question  the arrogance with which of ex Councillor Bradley Fisher calls the victims of Mogden “suspects”. I wonder who is the real suspect and what motivated him to stab his constituents in the back and support expansion  of the site.  Last  week  a witness for the Council in the 2004 Abatement trial wrote:“  Mogden STW was out of control at the weekend, I don’t know what happened, but it must have been a catastrophic failure of machinery and process. The whole of Isleworth was filled with an acrid smell that could only be described as disgusting for the majority of the weekend.This is an irresponsible collapse in “Best Practical Means” at the site. I am appalled that this is still not resolved and I expect immediate abatement action from the Council.Barry Edwards B.Sc.  Dip. H/E.  AMIEnv. Sc.  Environmental Science”Last Friday  Councillor Ed Mayne told the Hounslow Chronicle  “The odour has been horrendous over the weekend. I'm not sure what's going on but Thames Water's performance is not good enough. There are several issues at Mogden at the moment and it needs to get a grip on them.”A spokeswoman for Thames Water said: "Our team at the works were not aware of any increases in smell over the weekend”    So in effect the spokeswoman is saying that the high levels of odour are just the ‘norm’ and residents cannot expect it to get any better? What I find extremely strange is that the Leader of the Council told the Chronicle “"I have been assured by officers that they inspected the site following several calls to our 24/7 response service and they reported no problems."Its a great pity the Leader didn’t think to study his officers’ own site inspection reports which found many issues of poor housekeeping if not negligence.“the storm water tanks and all of the uncovered storm water tanks had between 0.5 and 1.88m of effluent in them. Tanks 1a,1b,2a,2b,3a,3b,6a, 6b,7a, 7b, 8a and 8b required flushing and the hoppers to the same tanks also required over pumping and both storm feed channels required flushing which may explain the source of odour”“On the morning of 22nd October the at approximately 03:32 a complaint was received from a resident via email. who advised that there was severe odour on Twickenham Road between Worton Road and Mogden Lane. The odour log for the am shift  showed that monitors 4, 7 and 12 were not operating and that there were some spikes from monitor 3. As the SCADA system was not operating at the time of the inspection it was not possible to check if there were any peaks showing on monitor 1(east side) and monitor 2 (north side) which would show if there were any problem with identified which could be associated with the use of the uncovered storm water tanks. The storm log for the AM shift received by the Council from Thames Water had not been completed and therefore it has not been possible to identify if any of the storm water tanks were in use. Given the location complained of which is to the East of the works it is likely that the use of the storm water tanks is likely to be the source f odour complained of. I wonder if Councillor Steve Curran has questioned his officers on what they think drives someone to make a complaint of severe stench at 03.32 in the morning?

Steve Taylor ● 4109d

Here's extract of correspondence between the Mogden Residents Action Group, Thames Water and Hounslow Coucil yesterday. Needless to say Thames Water has not responded but my undertanding is that Environmental Health Officers have been called out again this evening as Thames Water has claimed the plant is 'operating normally""Thank you for your email. We are however quite astounded that you are asking residents to provide you with dates and times of your odour  events when you are supposed to maintain an OMP which provides you with procedures to record odour and take the necessary action. Notwithstanding that your odour monitor data has still not been uploaded to your website since April 2014, despite our repeated requests.  You are however fully aware of odour from your Scada system yet it now appears that Thames Water fails to react to such data and will only react once it receives complaints from residents. This is clear evidence that Thames Water does not maintain an effective odour management regime to deal with routine odour management. A quick glance at your odour data will provide you with scores of odour events  this summer which have produced odour way above the legal limit of 0.015ppm H2S. Why should residents need to continuously complain if Thames Water is doing its job?    The OMP, the SOP, the uploading of Odour Monitor data, the Council Site Inspections, the mosquito inspections, the gully cleaning etc  were designed and insisted upon by residents, the Council and the Courts for exactly that purpose despite Thames Water's resistance to implement robust procedures of its own volition. Some simple examples for you to explain.  10  September 03:25hrs, odour monitor 10 peaked at 0.043ppm. (that's a massive odour output) Odour monitor 3 spiked to 0.016 at 04:38hrs and monitor 3 spiked to 0.030 at the same time. Odour monitor 6 spiked to 0.015 22 August  - Odour monitor 9 located near the main entrance to the site peaked to a massive level of 0.039ppm H2S  These are just two examples from dozens of which you should be fully aware!  What was the cause? What action was taken? How can you possibly say the site is odour neutral? Regarding the fungus gnats - you advise that it is not possible to pinpoint their origin. This totally contradicts the findings of Hounslow's chief pest control officer who made it clear that they originated from the covered primary settlement tanks (PSTs) on the west side of the works (whereas previous issues were on the east side) i.e. the infestation of a different species to the two previous years.  What residents want to know is why  insect levels in the PSTs were not addressed prior to problems appearing outside of the works. Why did Thames Water need to receive complaints before addressing the problem which has caused so much distress to your neighbours? RegardsMogden Residents Action Group"

Steve Taylor ● 4147d