Forum Topic

MOGDEN - Group Litigation

MRAG has asked me to post the latest:Dear Residents (copied blind to protect email privacy) The £multi million High Court case against Thames Water for years of neglect at Mogden starts on 23 February and is expected to last 6 weeks. As you are probably aware Hounslow's Tory Leadership performed an incredible and cowardly u-turn by turning its back on residents and agreed to Thames Water's application to increase the site capacity by almost double BEFORE awaiting the outcome of the trial. We believe Hounslow Council  will have a lot to answer for by agreeing to the expansion of Mogden before awaiting the outcome of the trial where Thames Water's   handling of previous expansion programmes will be thoroughly examined. We were as shocked to hear that Ann Keen MP held a secret meeting with Thames Water and subsequently also supported the expansion application and thus all Labour Councillors on the SDC voted approval of the application without obtaining any agreement from Thames Water to cover the most odorous parts of the site as a pre-condition to planning approval.   Local ICG and Lib Dem Cllrs were totally opposed to the expansion going ahead until the outcome of the Group Litigation is made known and, despite the lack of support from local Labour and Tory parties,  the Lib Dems have now in any event launched a petition calling for the covering of the Storm Tanks. Whilst Cllr Andrew Dakers has been out and about gaining support for the petition, and will continue during the next weeks,  you may wish to register your support on line by signing it electronically  at  http://www.hounslowlibdems.org.uk/petitions/3.html The petition reads: PETITION CALLING FOR ALL THE MOGDEN STORM WATER TANKS TO BE COVERED To: The Chief Executives of Thames Water and OFWAT,  We the undersigned object to the continued stench from Mogden Sewage works that blights our lives.   We call upon Thames Water – as Cllr Andrew Dakers and Vincent Cable MP urged in September 2009 – to cover an additional three storm tanks by the end of March 2010 and, if the odour has not reduced substantially during the summer, the final three by the end of 2010. If you would like more information about the trial please email us at mrag27@aol.com  Thank you for your support. Mogden Residents Action Group IsleworthWhittonSt MargaretsHounslowTwickenhamRichmond   

Steve Taylor ● 5911d5 Comments

"It would be completely unreasonable and indeed unlawful for a local planning authority to decline to approve an application unless certain other issues on another part of the site, which was not part of the application to be determined, were addressed." Thats the point. The planning application was to increase capacity and reduce the use of storm tanks. the storm tanks are a central point of focus for the application. The application has to be 'sustainable'. Our advice is that failure to cover more tanks renders the application non sustainable.The last expansion failed because when complete the EA did not consent to the designed flow capacity. The current litigation will hopefully determine why it failed so that same mistakes cannot be repeated. Put simply. If you made application to extend your house from 3 to 6 bedrooms and it was approved; when completed building inspectors said all was OK but you could not inhabit 2 of the additional bedrooms because they didn't quite meet minimum standard; you then make application to extend to 8 bedrooms without really understanding why you couln't inhabit 2 of the bedrooms and without knowing if, when complete, you will be permitted inhabit the additional bedrooms. Confusing isn't it?The current case explores unchartered waters which will have an effect on the entire utilities industry in England and Wales and will set precedents in law.Its far to big and important for this local authority who, as you quite rightly point out in your point(1), are not able to think oract  outside the very limited box. They should have recognised their limitations and it should have been deferred or referred to the Mayor of London and then to the Secretary of State.They acted above their paygrade in this instance.     

Steve Taylor ● 5907d

Article on page 6 of online  http://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/

Steve Taylor ● 5909d

Details of the petition will be included in the next issues of our newsletters Village News and Community News.

Phil Andrews ● 5911d

The fight against these environmental criminals is certainly not over in this part of Hounslow and both myself and my wife Cllr Shirley Fisher who represents the Syon Ward have both been summoned to the High Court next week as witnesses along with local residents who decided to make a stand against Thames Water.Whatever your political colour can I please urge everyone to sign Cllr Dakers petition?

Paul Fisher ● 5911d

Two points Steve :1) The Council has a statutory responsibility to determine planning applications within 8 weeks (minors) and 13 weeks (majors) otherwise the applicant has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State against non-determination of the application.  Additionally failure to determine applications within those timescales adversely affects a relevant best value performance indicator which also until this year, was one of the key indicators which shaped the amount of funding from central government received by local planning authorities.2) Legally, a planning application has got to be considered on its own individual merits.  It would be completely unreasonable and indeed unlawful for a local planning authority to decline to approve an application unless certain other issues on another part of the site, which was not part of the application to be determined, were addressed.I should stress I'm in no way suggesting the decision to approve the application was or wasn't right, but a couple of points made in the latest update from MRAG have no basis in planning law.

Adam Beamish ● 5911d