Forum Topics

Mogden Expansion would be environmental disaster for Hounslow & Richmond

The Mogden Residents Action Group (MRAG)  has asked me to post the following on this forum: "Thames Water has applied for planning permission to almost double the capacity of Mogden.  If permission is granted work will begin in winter 2008 and finish in 2012.  We read  with much bemusement this week that Thames Water  state that if massive expansion of Mogden goes ahead there will be no increase in odour. Thames Water has no evidence whatsoever to support its claim. If Thames Water's planning application is permitted it will be a travesty for residents of Richmond and Hounslow boroughs.  Expanding capacity of the site is purely and simply because Thames Water closed down other STW and diverted flow to Mogden and boosted profits at the expense of the local community. In 1999 Thames Water completed major expansion of Mogden to increase capacity from 450 ml/d to 810 ml/d.  This failed because at the end of the project  the Environmental Agency only consented to 690 ml/d being treated. Thames Water is  therefore  seeking planning permission to increase Mogden capacity from 690 megalitres per day to a massive 1074 megalitres per day or face fines / penalties or divert the sewage elsewhere. Following the last project which increased capacity  from 450 to  690 ml/d, odour from Mogden increased so massively  that an Abatement Notice was served on Thames Water. After various appeals a judge ruled  that there existed and continues to exist an odour which amounts in law to a nuisance. The judge agreed 42 months for Thames to stop the odour. The 42 months expires in August 2008. Odour has not reduced significantly. In fact odour complaints for June 2008 far exceed the complaints for June 2007 In May 2004 Thames Water's Managing Director at the time informed MP Vince Cable and Defra Minister Lord Whitty that it would cost £70 to £100 million to stop odour at Mogden.  Ofwat agreed to allow £42million of public money towards the project. Thames Water refused to contribute towards the project and it later admitted to MP Vince Cable  that the current odour improvement programme would only reduce odour by approximately 50% Experts believe that there are in excess of 10,000 dwellings within the effected area that have been effected by odour and / or mosquitoes. Running separately to the statutory nuisance case is a Group Litigation which is a claim against Thames Water by residents of Hounslow and Richmond boroughs in relation to its operation of Mogden STW. The case has been lengthy and complex and the matter is now listed for a 6 week trial to commence on 6th February 2009. As recently as last week on 17 June 2008, odour from Mogden was so severe that Hounslow Environmental Services saw fit to inspect the site during the evening. The Environmental Health Officer found a Primary Settlement Tank which had considerable sludge which had built up on the surface of the effluent at both the west and east ends and was causing odour. It was later identified as a scraper failure which had caused the sludge build up. He also found a Digester which was gassing off actively via the perimeter seal and this was causing a strong localised odour. Thames Water staff responsible for the site were oblivious to the problems! As recently as 31 March  2008 an Environmental Health Officer found open skips  containing  material, including screenings, should have been covered with a tarpaulin. On 10 April he found the same problem and Thames admitted that it had only just  ordered the tarpaulins. And this in 2008 after a district Judge specifically ordered in June 2005 that all plant and odorous materials are kept covered at all times. It was interesting to read this week that Thames  Water  admits that it can't stop Mogden from smelling when the Abatement Notice served in 2001 was upheld and ordered the company to stop the odour. Thames Water have had since 2001 to abate the odour nuisance and to date it has failed. Residents have always maintained that covering only two of eight open storm tanks would not be sufficient. Thames have had five years to cover all storm tanks but the company refused to comply. Increasing capacity of a failing mismanaged site is not the answer. The answer is to put a limit on the flow entering Mogden which is exactly what the Environment Agency has done. The Company cannot even cope with the current consent flow without causing unlawful odour nuisance as determined by Environmental Protect Act 1990.  We believe that as Thames Water has refused to employ latest technology in odour abatement, it is extremely doubtful that site expansion will reduce odour and Thames Water has no evidence to show otherwise.  Based on residents' experiences, following the last expansion, we believe odour would increase significantly if expansion were to go ahead. We believe that until the current odour improvement results have been analysed by an Independent Odour Expert,  it is inappropriate for Thames Water to be considering further expansion of a site which is currently under statutory court order. We believe that it is inappropriate for Thames Water to be considering site expansion of a site when it is due to face charges of negligence in court in February 2009. If expansion is permitted it will be to the detriment of the local communities of Richmond and Hounslow. In the meantime it would be in Thames Water's interest to cover the remaining  six odorous storm tanks, which cause regular odour nuisance to St Margarets, Twickenham and Isleworth, without further unnecessary procrastination.  For further information email  mrag27@aol.com Mogden Residents Action Group (MRAG)  www.mogden.org.uk

Steve Taylor ● 6705d22 Comments ● 6451d

Hounslow gets four stars in Audit Commission's performance assessment

From the London Borough of Hounslow website:"The London Borough of Hounslow has received the highest rating possible for its performance from a government watchdog."The council received the top “four star” rating in the Audit Commission’s annual Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA), and was found to be “improving well.”"Hounslow has moved up from its previous three star rating thanks to high performance for adult social care and improvements to leisure and environmental services. The Audit Commission also noted improvements in school results, the amount of social housing provided and rates of youth crime."Cllr Peter Thompson, leader of the council, said: 'To get the highest possible rating is a fantastic achievement for everyone who works at the council, and I’d like to congratulate them for their hard work."'But this won’t make us complacent as we know local people want us to do better in some areas that are important to them."'That is why we’ve made 10 promises to local residents to make the borough a place where people are proud to live - from keeping the council tax down, to cutting the amount of graffiti on the borough’s streets."'These are things local people have told us will make a difference to their quality of life, and that, at the end of the day, is what we are here to do.'"The Audit Commission found financial standing and value for money were both good at the council."The council has successfully bid for significant sums to improve the borough’s streetscene and rebuild schools. The innovative performance improvement programme, which is about service transformation, has identified savings of £53 million over three years to plough back into priority services."I should add that much of the credit for this excellent result must also go to my ICG colleagues Councillor Paul Fisher and Councillor Dr. Genevieve Hibbs, respectively the current Lead Member and the former Lead Member for Service Improvement.

Phil Andrews ● 6456d5 Comments ● 6455d

local business rents and dismal high street

Extracts from the minutes of meeting of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning) held on Thursday, 22 January 2009“On the matter of rent setting Mike Jordan confirmed that officers did acknowledge the need to reflect a range of uses. However, where the Authority instructed valuers to obtain the market value without restrictions on the use of the premises, they would do so. Councillor Hardy suggested that rent reviews were an important recurring issue for this area, noting the high turnover of tenants in Brentford High Street.”Amidst the painful use of phrases like ‘holistic’ and ‘robust context’ (do people really speak this way?) – there was no real mention of the huge rent rises some of the traders on the high street have had imposed on them. I know one who had his rent almost doubled at the end of last year.It is clear that there are not enough good shops in Brentford. There are more bookies than grocers. But the councillors feel its enough to spout platitudes and hand over responsibilities to valuers. How can the council claim to have the interests of the community as a key aim and then price local businesses out of the high street?I think we might benefit from being less ‘holistic’ and getting more practical and realistic.  We will never have any local businesses and local community if we price all but the bookies out of the market. Rather than "market value" (which I’m guessing is set for west London, not Brentford itself) why not offer discounts and incentives? What are we scared of here - someone actually making a profit in Brentford?

Alan Clark ● 6465d7 Comments ● 6462d