Forum Topic

Mogden - a response to Councillor Andrew Dakers

In your article on the decision by the council's Sustainable Development Committee to approve Thames Water's proposals to expand its Mogden operation, Councillor Andrew Dakers comments as follows:"I share Cllr Andrews regret at the decision of SDC regarding Mogden, which is why I supported his motion at IBAC yesterday evening. However, as a member of SDC that supported the decision to expand Mogden on Wednesday, I felt like most other councillors that under current planning law this was the best deal we could get for the community - however I cast my vote with regret that this was the only way forward. I dispute that any member of the committee made a "cowardly"decision, we deliberated long and hard - until 11 o'clock at night. If Cllr Andrews believes there is information that officers did not share, this should be brought to all councillors attention."I am happy to oblige.  In my submission it was the decision, proposed by officers and accepted by members, which was cowardly.  This is not the same thing as saying that the members themselves were cowardly.  The members acted upon officer advice.Officers could have informed members on the night that the applicant's claim that it would not be allowed by OFWAT to cover the storm tanks was inaccurate, but chose not to.  They could also have pointed out that for years Thames has acted in breach of Statutory Notices served upon it by the London Borough of Hounslow, meaning that Hounslow could have enforced against Thames at any time had it had the will to do so, but chose not to.In my view a deferral or rejection would have compelled Thames to have come back with a better scheme.  The applicant is keen to get the works done and would not have wanted the delay that would have occurred had the appeals process been invoked.It is my opinion that the information provided to members on the night was highly selective.  For what it is worth it was also contrary to promises made to us as ward members immediately before the meeting, that the covering of the storm tanks would be insisted upon by officers as a necessary condition of acceptance.Under the circumstances I feel that ward members were deliberately fobbed off with regard to our officers' intentions.  Was their Lead Member complicit in this?  In my opinion probably not but for me this barely matters, her subsequent defence of their actions suggests that she is clearly happy for them to behave in this manner towards us regardless, and that the fallout that her coalition colleagues would have to face from their constituents as a consequence was considered preferable to enduring the inconvenience of having to challenge her own officers.As for the motives of the officers in conducting themselves as they did, that is a matter for conjecture.  What is indisputable is that their eagerness for this application to progress stands in stark contrast to the lethargy that they have been allowed to display towards ward members and residents when it comes to enforcing against Thames and the unlawful nuisance that it continues to inflict upon the surrounding community.

Phil Andrews ● 6291d31 Comments

I fully endorse Cllr Phil Andrews' comments and appreciate the energy and time he has devoted to this issue for over a decade. It is diabolical that he has not been supported by Hounslow's Environmental Services Department in simply trying to improve the environment for thousands of residents.

Steve Taylor ● 6287d

AdamWhether or not it was incumbent upon officers to draw members' attention to the applicant's uneviable track record of disregarding its statutory obligations, I believe members are entitled to expect officers to speak up when they are aware that an applicant has wilfully misled the Committee.Thames Water told members of the Committee (and it is on the webcast) that it could not agree to a condition to cover the storm tanks as OFWAT would not permit it to do so.  This was a lie, as the Hounslow Chronicle has itself established from OFWAT this week.  Officers knew (or ought to have known) that it was a lie.  They kept schtum.I am not blaming the individual officers concerned for this.  It is increasingly obvious in my view that there is a corporate reluctance to tackle Thames Water which has survived the change in administration.  But it is clearly wrong and if I have anything whatsoever to do with it it is going to change, and quickly.

Phil Andrews ● 6287d

AndrewI guess it's going to have to be me, and it's going to be difficult for me to offer you a straight answer on this without me upsetting one or two people but I guess I have nothing to lose now in any event.The simple fact of the matter is that the technology does exist to make Mogden more or less odour free, and it would cost Thames Water only a small proportion of one year's profits to discharge its responsibilities to the neighbouring community but it categorically refuses to do so.  It is only prepared to commit public money, raised with the regulator's permission, to the cause of honouring its statutory obligations to the same public.  This is why over 1000 residents are taking legal action against the comapny.The London Borough of Hounslow's track record in supporting the residents over Mogden is regrettably woeful, and I am ashamed to say that that has not changed with the advent of a new administration.  Believe me it's not that we haven't tried, but we are going to have to try harder and I can assure you that we will.Indeed it was under the previous administration that Abatement Notices were secured, officers acting under intense pressure from the organised community and some of them, clearly happy to have been let of the leash at last, did a very fine job in presenting and winning the argument in court.However, having secured judgement in the residents' favour there has been a general unwillingness to enforce. As an environmental concern Mogden did indeed fall naturally into Councillor Reid's portfolio, but as as you will appreciate constituted only a very small and localised part of it.  Faced with a clear lack of support for MRAG and the community it represents (one officer claimed that lack of resources was the problem, then had the impertinence to refuse to accept more resources when Cllr. Reid offered them to him!) it would have been difficult for her to have purused the Mogden cause as tenaciously as was clearly required without compromising her relationship with officers who had given her a great deal of support on other projects such as the PFI and her excellent campaigning work against Heathrow expansion.Recognising this, as part of our annual negotiations with our coalition partners last May we expressed our wish that Mogden be prised away from the Environmental portfolio and handed to a Community Group member of the Executive, which in the event was Councillor Paul Fisher.  Within a nanosecond of this having happened the Borough Solicitor had been lobbied to intervene on the grounds that Paul had a conflict of interests, being one of the Mogden litigants.  Whilst this was probably correct, it is noteworthy how quick somebody was to react to the news that responsibility for Mogden would be coming over to us!The importance of tackling Thames Water on Mogden to us as a coalition partner cannot be overstated, and is likely to be the subject of some deliberation in the days and weeks ahead.  But residents can be assured that we will do absolutely everything within our power over the coming year to ensure that a new approach is taken.

Phil Andrews ● 6287d

Phil - you have raised many valid points on this thread whihc we will both continue to explore with Steve.  For me though the most significant issue is the continued harm to local residents' quality of life caused by the existing sewage works.  Despite recent improvements new technology should surely allow us to remove the smell almosy entirely.  Can you - or Cllr Reid - as I think it is her portfolio, update us on what enforcement action the Council is taking against TW?  And do we have any timescales?  It seems extraordinary that it the residents having to take all the action and not the Council.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6287d

This doc may explain how the Aarhus is translated into UK regulations: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/opengov/eir/pdf/cop-eir.pdfI must say my initial impression is that it isnt that strong.  Steve can you point us towards key passages in this or the original convention?The position of SDC on accusation of past/ existing misdemenours by TW was well captured by Adam when he said - "In particular I raise alarm at your suggestion that Officers could (and by the tone of your post it is implied that they should) have pointed out TW's breaches of statutory notices.  You know and I know such issues carry no legal weight whatsoever when determining the planning merits of an application, it is simply a case of determining whether what is proposed is acceptable or not, having regard to development plan policies and all other material planning considerations..."Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6287d

The webcast is working now

Steve Taylor ● 6288d

Indeed it is unavailable!! Cllr Paul Fisher wrote to the officer in charge on Friday morning at just after 10 a.m. and asked him to get it online. Cllr Phil Andrews repeated the request later in the day. The officer responded that he was working from home on Friday but that he would ask someone else to sort it out. It was still unavailable on Friday evening.  Cllr Andrew Dakers has today written to the officer asking for the webcast to be made available..... lets see what happens tomorrow!

Steve Taylor ● 6289d

KarenYou are absolutely correct.  It isn't working.

Phil Andrews ● 6289d

The webcast of the SDC meeting seems unavailable.

Karen Adams ● 6289d

AdamWith due respect we shouldn't be arguing about whether or not it there is any law against providing inadequate information to potential appellants against a major planning application.The rules as they stand were introduced by the London Borough of Hounslow itself, ironically under the previous administration, and one assumes that somebody somewhere decided that five days' notice was the minimum that should be given.The coalition which currently runs the borough represents a coming together of two distinct political programs, one of which centres around traditional Conservative ideals such as low tax, and the other around consultation and public engagement.The position we are in at present is akin to the position our partners would have found themselves in had the ICG forced through a 5% Council Tax increase at last week's budget meeting.SDC's failure to consult may or may not have been unlawful, and if it was residents may or may not decide that it is viable to seek a legal remedy.  To me that is largely peripheral.  What makes my position so difficult is the knowledge that, in this instance at least, we have been less successful at involving residents in the process than even the previous administration, which held the whole notion of public engagement in quite open contempt.Maybe somebody would like to try to persuade me that I have got this all wrong, either through this forum or privately.  As I write all I have been greeted with is silence.

Phil Andrews ● 6290d

SteveIn fairness to Vanessa I made the first reference to Worton Green, although it was John who originally derailed it with his frankly absurd comparison between an Executive giving "in principle" support for a car park on a piece of hard standing under a flyover subject to consultation and planning approval, and a planning committee giving carte blanche to Thames Water to devastate the lives of as many as 10,000 local residents on the back of erroneous information.I hope the thread will now return to its original topic.

Phil Andrews ● 6290d

I should clarify I'm not trying to be 'difficult', but I'm genuinely not convinced there is a case to answer here.  The committee agenda was published and would have been available to view both online and at Council libraries.  The frontpage of the agenda sets out the details of the committee and how someone can register to speak.  Whilst this may not be 'perfect', I don't believe there is anything in law (planning or otherwise) to suggest that this is legally insufficient to allow the decision to be challenged - the public were formally consulted on the planning application and the relevant committee agenda was available to the public to view and make requests to speak.  I'm happy to be corrected.

Adam Beamish ● 6290d

Steve, of course 'the law' covers many things.  I am certain what Phil has mentioned in respect of inviting people to speak at committee isn't anything to do with planning law.  A lawyer doesn't know every part of the law.  So I hope you are not criticising my profession.

Adam Beamish ● 6290d

Dear Vanessa May I respectfully request that you take this Worton Green dog toilet issue to another thread. I do not in any way wish to undermine the importance of the subject and the interest it may have to many but I believe this particular thread was started with the intention of debating the vast 'human toilet'  issue being planned for the areaKind rgds, Steve

Steve Taylor ● 6290d

Thank you Adam, but I am sure.  It is however interesting that you aren't sure because this would indicate that many planning officers are also unsure of the law. More reason to defer is it not?

Steve Taylor ● 6290d

"We thought then, and still do, that that was the right decision"VanessaFor the benefit of anybody who might not be entirely familiar with this particular little episode, would you please be so kind as to explain who "we" are?Just in case anybody thinks you might be referring to the residents, your former constituents, who actually lived on the estate and used the green.

Phil Andrews ● 6290d

Steve,Obviously (given my profession) I'm fully aware of the relevant parts of UK planning, but, without scouring through actual planning legislation, I am unaware of any actual part of the town and country planning legislation that says that anyone who makes a representation on a planning application has, by law, to be formally notified of the committee meeting at which that application is going to be discussed.  Certainly it isn't part of the T&CP (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, which sets out a Council's statutory duties in handling planning applications, nor, as I far as I recall is it covered in the EIA regulations.I totally agree that people who make representations should be notfied of committee.  Whether a judicial challenge can be made in circumstances where they are not I am not sure on.

Adam Beamish ● 6290d

'Worton Green' as you refer to it was a glorified dog's toilet and motor bike track which was the subject of many, many complaints long before you decided it should become some sort of environmental paradise lost and used for your own political ends. There is still managed, useable green space left and decent housing replacing some of the most disgusting and sub-standard housing that was there, that we were rightly ashamed of. We thought then, and still do, that that was the right decision, a far cry from building in public parks I suggest, and of benefit to the local community.

Vanessa Smith ● 6290d

You've got to hand it to Cllr Cadbury though. Although she works without a power base anymore, her vast experience in manipulation enabled her and Cllr Cooper to wipe the floor with the inexperienced Tories and effectively lose Mary Mcleod any chance of winning the seat in the next general election. Another term with Mrs Keen looming? What will be interesting is to see what will happen at Council  when both Cllrs Brad Fisher and Lily Bath lose their seats in the local elections. Local residents will be voting with their noses and this recent fiasco indicates how similar these two are. Residents (and neighbours of the two)  will be looking for someone who is actually concerned about their well-being!  I for one will not want to see the faces of these two when they remind me of the vomit inducing stench of raw sewage. Cllr Cadbury has masterfully manipulated the Tories into losing control of the Council too. Outstanding!

Steve Taylor ● 6290d

6000 houses in Gunnersbury Park Vanessa.  And 12000 in Osterley Park.And 54 on Worton Green.  Oh no sorry, I made that one up.

Phil Andrews ● 6290d

Not to mention the proposed 60 houses in Gunnersbury Park.

Vanessa Smith ● 6290d

Phil My apologies - I stand corrected. I guess my thread should read "It is not surprising that the three New Labour Cllrs voted in favour of this application (which will cause more odour to residents in Richmond and Hounslow)  as they, in any event, voted against Cllr Phil Andrews'  motion to support community engagement and involvement. Listening to the voice of the community is not something New Labour wants as it would be an unnecessary distraction and it is totally foreign to the mentality of the party.  What is unspeakable is that the Conservative members  used this application as a platform to disassociate themselves from (and openly show contempt for)  Cllr Phil Andrews' motion of community engagement and involvement. It speaks volumes that petty politics is at the forefront rather than the thousands of victims they purport to serve."

Steve Taylor ● 6290d

The decision on Mogden was indeed unsatisfactory. However, it is consistent with the one recently made by the Council's Executive to allow SmithKlineBeecham to build a large car park in breach of Hounslow's planning policies in return for a large bung. MONEY RULES OK in Hounslow these days.

John Connelly ● 6290d

SteveTo be fair to the three New Labour members who proposed approval of the officers' recommendation, they never supported my motion to improve community engagement and involvement in the first place so didn't need to disassociate themselves from it.

Phil Andrews ● 6290d

AdamMore importantly the convention was transposed into Community legislation by virtue of Directive 2003/35/EC and into UK law by virtue of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Article 6 of the Convention provides for public participation in decisions on the specific activities listed in Annex I and on activities not so listed which may have a significant effect on the environment. The current planning application clearly comes within Annex 1 paragraph 6.Any planning officer involved in Planning involving Environmental Assessment  should be ware of the laws of UK Town and Country Planning.  The Director Environmental Services should have been aware of the laws but  in any event he was made aware of the objection well before the Committee sat. The  Executive Lead Member Environmental Services, who sat on the SDC, and was made aware of the objection well before the meeting, and was reminded again at the start of the meeting by another SDC member, chose not to comment or act. All members of the SDC were provided with details of specific clauses and paragraphs referring to the laws in question.The ineptitude of officers and  SDC members (with the exception of Cllr Jon Hardy) is a disgrace and will cost this community dearly. As all this information was made available to all members it is unspeakable that members used this application as a platform to disassociate themselves from (and openly show contempt for)  Cllr Phil Andrews' motion of community engagement and involvement. It speaks volumes that petty politics is at the forefront rather than the thousands of victims they purport to serve.

Steve Taylor ● 6290d

Phil, I think you may has misread my email, as I too was presuming that the nature of complaint was that people who had made representations on a application were not advised of the time, date and venue of the committee meeting and how they could register to speak.  I cannot remember what the procedure was when I was at Hounslow, we definitely notified people (both owners and complainants) when an enforcement matter was going to committee (initially when I arrived we didn't but then someone once complained and I could the sense in notifying people so they could come along and observe their particular subject being discussed) but I cannot recall what happened in respect of planning applications,I may be a planning professional but I am no wiser than you in terms of the Aarhus Convention and can appreciate your position.

Adam Beamish ● 6290d

The local authority was wrong and the SDC was wrong not to defer the application. Any planning application which may have a significant effect on the environment falls within the Convention.The local authority was also wrong not to insist that Thames Water cover the remaining storm tanks. Ofwat don't have to provide funding authority. Ofwat Final Determinations are quite clear that this is a matter for Utilities Companies themselves.

Steve Taylor ● 6290d

AdamIn the case of a planning application the practice is to consult those likely to be affected as a result, which of course is sometimes a judgement call.In this particular instance the complaint is not about lack of consultation with regard to the application itself, but the fact that the local authority did not stick to its own rules with regard to notifying interested parties of their right to apply to speak at Committee within the stipulated time period.The legal officer at the meeting was of the belief that there is no loss of a statutory right involved, but MRAG has been advised by Counsel that UK law on this matter is superseded by the terms of the Aarhus Convention, an environmental agreement which gives members of the public access to information, justice and participation.  Whether the legal officer advising SDC has it right or MRAG's Counsel is something I as a layman am not in a position to say.  But as the leader of a group whose sole agenda is informed by the desire to improve engagement and participation I do find myself in an extremely difficult position over this and am not currently being inundated with offers to help me out of it.

Phil Andrews ● 6290d

Thanks for your detailed response and explanation Phil.The subject of consultation in respect of inviting people to speak is one I'm unclear on as to what the constitution says.  In my day enforcement wise whenever an enforcement item was definitely on a committee agenda, even though speakers were not usually allowed to address the committee, we would always write to both the owner of the property potentially being enforced against and any complainants advising them of the time, date and venue of the meeting so that if they wanted to attend they could.I can't remember whether a similar practice was ever undertaken in respect of planning applications, certainly in my experience of life within the planning private sector I rarely if ever get formally notified.  Of course I'm a professional planner so it's my job to make sure I know the situation, but I agree that a local resident is going to understandably rely on being informed by the Council.

Adam Beamish ● 6290d

AdamEverything you say is essentially correct.  However if you watch the webcast (if ever it reappears, it is currently malfunctioning for some peculiar reason) you will hear Thames Water's claim that the covering of the storm tanks - a necessary condition for odour prevention and one which would have been acceptable to residents - was not possible as OFWAT would not allow it.  A member asked why this should be and no answer was forthcoming.I know the answer.  The answer is that Thames Water's claim is untrue.  OFWAT has the power to decide whether, and by how much, Thames is able to claim the cost of any works it undertakes back from the public purse in the form of water charges.  It would have no interest whatsoever had Thames Water, which makes hundreds of millions of pounds of profit for its shareholders, volunteered to commit a tiny proportion of its own funds to the cause of discharging its statutory duty to the neighbouring community.So the simple fact is that Thames gave false information to the Committee as to why it felt it could not accept a condition, officers knew it to be false but chose not to share this fact with members even when the information was asked for.Had residents been given the notice required under the constitution that they could apply to speak on the agenda item then they could have been better prepared.  The Committee was notified that it had breached its own rules in respect of notice given but the Chair ruled that the agenda item would proceed regardless.  As a result we are now facing the possibility of the decision being subject to Judicial Review as an alleged contravention of the Aarhus Convention.The whole raison d'etre of the Community Group, which is a partner in the coalition that currently manages the council, lies in its commitment to public consultation and engagement.  It is therefore more than a little embarrassing to be in the position of having to face court proceedings for a breach of our statutory duty of consultation of a magnitude which even our control-freak predecessors never managed.Something clearly has to give here, doesn't it?

Phil Andrews ● 6291d

Phil, there's no doubt you are more knowledgeable of the whole Mogden situation, background etc, than I am, but I read the Officer's report the other day and it immediately struck me how, when it is remembered that any planning application can only be assessed against development plan policies and all other material planning considerations, the recommendation to approve appeared 'sound'.  In particular I raise alarm at your suggestion that Officers could (and by the tone of your post it is implied that they should) have pointed out TW's breaches of statutory notices.  You know and I know such issues carry no legal weight whatsoever when determining the planning merits of an application, it is simply a case of determining whether what is proposed is acceptable or not, having regard to development plan policies and all other material planning considerations.  In the same way both SDC and IBAC have determined many enforcement related planning applications where enforcement notices have been served, but the previous formal action taken cannot 'shape' the committee decision.Like I say, I'm not as well informed about the whole Mogden saga, and I wasn't at SDC, so I cannot make any comment as to whether or not the Officers could have presented the application better/stronger, but I do feel from your post that sight is being lost of what planning law allows.

Adam Beamish ● 6291d