Forum Topic

Although the stench prevails the Council cabinet, without any consultation with constituents and resident groups,  agreed to a request by the Environment Department to stop the 24/7 monitoring service on 1 April 2012 just before the warmer weather.  Strange though that the Cabinet only met on 17 April to agree that the 24/7 service would be stopped 3 weeks previously.Councillor Smart  the Cabinet Member for Environment wished to stress that Thames Water was aware that the Council would take action whenever necessary. However, she wished to also make it clear thatthe workers on the ground at Mogden were doing a good job. She moved the recommendations of the report.Councillor Mayne seconded the motion. One can only wonder how Councillor Smart can stress that the Council will take action whenever necessary when she effectively moved the recommendation to remove the only tool to monitor the site and take 24/7 odour readings which would be a prerequisite to taking any action whatsoever. One can only wonder which site Councillor Smart visited to proclaim that Thames Water is doing a good job and if she has ever actually read a site inspection report or checked an odour monitor. Thames Water had a good laugh when the inept Conservative Group approved expansion of the site which has since been found guilty, in a private group litigation, of 18 counts of negligence and mismanagement.Now the Company can have even a bigger laugh at how the current administration is so keen to prevent itself from taking any legal action and provide any environmental protection to residents under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Steve Taylor ● 4755d

PRESS RELEASEEmbargo: 8 December 2011VICTORY FOR RESIDENTS AGAINST THAMES WATER Residents successful in ‘David & Goliath’ battleAfter a long and arduous fight, 1,350 residents living near Mogden Sewage Treatment Works in Isleworth, Middlesex have won their mammoth battle against Thames Water Utilities Limited in relation to odour nuisance.  The residents live in an area which comprises Hounslow, Whitton, Twickenham and St Margarets as well as Isleworth.At the High Court today (8 December), Judge Mr Justice Ramsay handed down the judgment which holds Thames Water liable for breach of duty in relation to nuisance caused by odour from the Mogden plant.  In relation to allegations of negligence surrounding their management and operation at the Works, Mr Justice Ramsey significantly found that Thames Water had, since 1990, failed to have a long term odour management and investment strategy to deal with odour from the site.Mr Steve Taylor, one of the lead claimants, says: “I hope this case shows that David can take on Goliath in our legal system and win.  The case was never about money; it was about holding Thames Water to account for the problems that it has caused us over the last 10 years.  The huge impact on ordinary people's lives and on the environment cannot be underestimated. I am extremely grateful to Neil Stockdale and the Environment team at Hugh James as well as our Counsel, Stephen Hockman QC and John Bates, for relentlessly pursuing this case  on our behalf.  I believe this case is the first of its kind in the UK and the judgment in our favour will have a major influence on the way the managers and owners of sewage treatment works in England and Wales run their businesses"Although this is a significant victory for the residents, the stark warning is that happy endings like this one might not be possible in the future.  The Government plans to change legislation, effectively ending the current ‘no win no fee’ system, exposing claimants to huge upfront financial risks rather than being allowed to recover fees at the end if successful.  This will lead to claimants having to take responsibility for both their own expenses and the other side’s costs.Mr Taylor continues: “I’m shocked and very disappointed about the Government’s plans to change this legislation.  The stature and financial clout of Thames Water meant we were only able to take this case forward because of the current ‘no win no fee’ system.  Changing this system will deter others in similar situations to ours from bringing cases against big companies and will be a real obstacle for ordinary people to access justice.  I would ask the government to think very carefully about the effect that this might have on people’s lives.”Neil Stockdale, the partner at Hugh James who led the team dealing with the case said, “This result is a vindication of the residents’ genuine desire to protect their environment from blight. Unfortunately however, cases like this will no longer be possible in the future if the Government’s proposed reforms to the funding of litigation are enacted next year. “The Government is proposing that individuals take cases like this at their own risk; people just can’t afford to take such risks, particularly when they are up against the likes of Thames Water. If people don’t stand up now and oppose the Government's bill they will forever be powerless to take action to protect their legal rights in all sorts of cases. What the Government is suggesting is a real scandal and the biggest threat to access to justice we have ever witnessed in the UK.”Damages were sought against Thames Water for nuisance caused by odour and mosquitoes but claimants also sought for an injunction to prevent continuing nuisance. Today, the Judge has accepted 18 of the 30 allegations of negligence that were made in addition to finding that Thames Water had breached the claimants’ rights under the Human Rights Act, specifically Article 8 of the convention which protects the enjoyment of home and family life.The Judge said that the claimants had been caused to suffer significant inconvenience and annoyance from odour over and above that which was inevitable.In relation to Human Rights, High Court Judge Mr Justice Ramsay says of his decision: "Because I have held that Thames Water failed to carry out the work and conduct the operation at Mogden Sewage Treatment Works with all reasonable regard and care for the interests of other persons, including the claimants, it follows in my view that Thames Water failed properly to respect the rights of claimants and did not do all they reasonably could to prevent odour from migrating from the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works. They did not do what they should have done as a public authority in relation to the rights of the claimants". endsNotes to editor

Steve Taylor ● 4992d

Although Tory Todd started this thread wanting feedback on Mogden, he has now done a runner as it is clear the Tory approved expansion of  the site is proving to be a total disaster (as predicted by MRAG experts).  In case Tory Todd is under any misguided delusion that the expansion has been sustainable, here's a little whiff of what voters have been experiencing over the last few weeks because the Tory Group approved this expansion. The mind truly boggles at how the Tory Group succeeded in causing such an environmental disaster in such a short time in office in Hounslow Council. As we get nearer to the Christmas period there is little sign of any improvement so voters can prepare for yet another Christmas misery caused by these irresponsible, ignorant Tory Councillors.  "As someone who has lived in the area since 1997, the situation now is deteriorating badly. Hardly a few days go by without some pong from Mogden. I've given up entertaining at home as chances are friends would arrive to a stench from Mogden. It's annoying and very depressing" "most disgusting stench at Beaumont Place last night,1st October. This was especially notable as the windows and doors were open due to the hot weather.This was at its peak around 11pm. I had visitors round and had to apologise to them." "Yet another night of disgusting smell in Kneller Gardens and it's still here this morning. Everyone I speak to is moaning about it". "Putrid, foul, rank, nauseating, vile are just  few words to describe the stench emanating from the mogden site.""Yet another night of sleeping with the windows shut in an attempt to keep the stench outside of our home.What on earth is going on." "Two nights in a row! Its sickening." "The smell is totally disgusting in Worton Road and surely must be against one's human rights. It was particularly bad last night.""I returned home this evening at 5.35pm (Tuesday 11th Oct), and the stench in the air  was rancid.""There is a toxic stench from Mogden - they seem to be a business  completely out of control! I have unfortunately experienced Mogden  since moving here in 1998, and I have never known it to pollute so  consistently, often a number of times for short periods during the day." "In all the years I don't remember the stench being so bad this time of year. I was nearly physically sick the other day with the smell, it was like raw sewage." "This is totally unacceptable and something needs to be done about it, we should not have to repeatedly suffer this disgusting smell.""Mogden has been releasing horrible smells on the evening of Monday 10th & WEdnesday 12th October." "This evening I noticed the horrible smell on my return from work at around 6.00 pm and it is still smelling NOW @ 10.00 pm" "Bad smell again bottom of Northcote Road.  Is this problem ever going to  be sorted?""No result or action yet.  I'm beginning to think this is a war of attrition and I've had just about enough." "On the evening of Sunday 16th Oct at around 6.15 pm Mogden was releasing HORRIBLE smells. It was so embarrassing because my husband's family had come over from Ealing and they could not believe how bad the smell was. I thought by moving to Elizabeth Gardens I would be further away from Mogden and suffer less - how wrong could I be!  It was smelling again on Monday 17th @ 5.30 pm when I was putting out the recycling. When is it going to STOP?"

Steve Taylor ● 5004d

This thread started by Cllr Todd has become quite long but its interesting to note that he has now scuttled off as he has no more excuses or answers.It is important to note that the CURRENT problems being experienced by residents of Richmond and Hounslow are 100% the result of Tory Party ineptitude. Residents will never forget that Phil Andrews, Vince Cable, Ann Keen and the late Mike Carmen jointly succeeded in getting Ofwat to approve £42 million of ratepayer money to improve the site and cover all the Storm Tanks. Residents will never forget that when the Tories took control of the Council, the Tory Lead Member for Environment, without any consultation with residents or indeed her coalition partners, agreed with Thames Water to only cover 2 of the 8 tanks and thus allowed Thames to only spend £30 million of the allocated £42 million. Why she did that is anyone's guess. Why she permitted Thames to pocket the balance is anyone's guess.  Why the Tory Council Leader didn't have his eye on the ball is anyone's guess. When residents held meetings with the Tory Leadership and explained the situation in explicit detail (together with the Parliamentary Candidate Mary Macleod)  the Tories gave the impression of being willing to rectify this massive mistake by insisting that Thames covered all the remaining tanks as a condition of the planning application being considered. The Tories gave residents the impression that they would do just that..... End result -  they did a cowardly u-turn and unanimously approved the application without any robust condition attached to covering the storm tanks which are now used constantly.  Tories could and should have voted deferral and the application would have been thrown out and Thames Water would have covered the storm tanks immediately. That is a fact.  Let's not forget that Cllr Hearn even admitted that he didn't understand the application so he "voted on a hunch"  Not a single Tory Cllr bothered to even visit the site before voting. Cllr Barwood used the pathetic excuse that 'she had never been invited'.You couldn't make it up!

Steve Taylor ● 5043d

" I have no doubt that all Councillors voted in a manner they thought best at the time: they just didn't have the best advice to hand to make an informed decision and deferral would have been the best option while they equipped themselves with this. They also allowed themselves to be bullied by the Thames Water rep. " Jon - I would 'possibly'  agree with this if the Tory Group hadn't in fact all voted NO initially. They were provided with the best advice from an environmental scientist and a statement from residents' solicitors  which could be construed as an escape clause for them if in any doubt. They were fully aware of the facts of the mismanagement over the previous two decades and the fact that the environment dept had not addressed the problems so it it inconceivable that they allowed themselves to be bullied by the two Thames reps and indeed by the LBH senior officer recommending approval when it was clear to all that she had not raised the most important issues with Ofwat prior to recommending approval. But lets also not forget that this thread was started  by Cllr Todd in a futile and rather pathetic attempt to goad Phil Andrews. This backfired terribly and proved yet again that Cllr Todd has limited understanding of the issues and did not quite understand what was going on at the public meeting regarding the Entec survey. He clearly missed entirely the points raised by Barry Edwards, Phil Andrews and myself at that meeting where it was elaborately stressed by Barry that there was supposed to be resident and independent expert participation in drawing up the parameters for the survey. The survey was in fact conducted contrary to what was agreed for the S106 and is in itself not fit for purpose. It is not what residents expected and not what was agreed. It was paid for and conducted effectively by Thames Water. Cllr Todd has been repeatedly asked if he supports residents or if he supports Thames Water but he refuses to answer this simple question. One can only question why he spent so much time in the High Court of Justice watching the trial and X-exam of expert witnesses and Thames Water executives and why he refuses to reveal his true colours.

Steve Taylor ● 5065d

The Environment department is not incompetent.  It has as a Chief Officer a man who does not in my view have any respect for the democratic mandate exercised by the Lead Member, and who has even less respect for organised residents who are deemed to be amateurs in matters of planning and therefore intrinsically incapable of comprehending its complexities.  Remember this is a man who tried to have a very highly respected Isleworth residents' leader (a Conservative Party member as it happens) deemed a "vexatious complainant" so that he would no longer even have to read her e-mails!Unfortunately many councillors do seem to share this view of the general public.  Consultation and engagement are fine in the abstract as long as people are only expecting to be heard rather than really listened to.That this is the case was clearly evident by the treatment meted out to the MRAG spokesperson at SDC when the application was being heard.  The residents' representative, Barry Edwards, was belatedly given the opportunity to speak but nobody really took any notice of what he was saying because he was a resident and ipso facto could not possibly therefore have had any idea of what the really complicated issues involved really were.  The look of strained tolerance on the faces of some of the members said it all.The fact that he was an environmental scientist just didn't register with any of them.  He was there as a resident, as was thus to be humoured.The great irony of it all was that to any outside observer Barry was quite obviously more clued up than any of the elected members present, not only on the environmental question itself but also on the planning arguments, and if anybody was out of their depth....well, watch the video and see for yourself.I can only repeat that in approximately ten years of serving on planning committees this was the first and only occasion on which I have known relentless pre-lobbying of members by chief officers, continual asking of the applicant what it would and would not be prepared to accept as part of the S106 agreement, and what was effectively a refusal by officers to accept the first decision that the Committee reached.The Environment department is one that really does need strong political leadership.  The Conservatives on LBH frequently boasted that, unlike under Labour, the coalition was "member-led", but to be really honest I never really felt this was the case with Environment.  Or, if it was, then a tough stance would only be taken on those issues which were important to the Lead Member, and Mogden sadly wasn't one of them.In retrospect (hindsight being a wonderful thing) things would probably have been different had the ICG successfully insisted upon taking the portfolio as part of the coalition agreement, but we are talking about 2006 when Housing was still out of control and making essential changes there were our absolute first priority.  I don't think, bearing in mind the size of our Group, we could reasonably have asked for both Housing and Environment.There is not the slightest shadow of a doubt in my mind that there is something "dodgy" about the relationship between Thames Water and the London Borough of Hounslow.  I have seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest any kind of financial wrongdoing and indeed I do not think this to be the case, however I do think there is some serious probing to be done and it would take an elected member who is really on top of his or her brief to take on such a task.The problem is that this is clearly not going to happen with the council's current political representation.  The borough urgently needs some kind of third party presence from somebody who is capable and willing to sink their hands into the meat.  This is so important that it almost barely matters whence this presence comes.

Phil Andrews ● 5067d

"I expect everyone will draw their own conclusions but I hope people will ask questions too: Was the second vote legal? "I would suggest that it wasn't legal because the Tory Chair permitted the Tory Lead Member to leave the room before the second vote, allegedly to go to the toilet.  When she returned she led her party members to change their votes and vote approval. I was under the impression that voting members could not leave the room.  "Although proper for Members to consider the consequences of voting against approval why does it seem that they took more notice of Richard Aylard from Thames Water than their own officers?"  Again I question the motives of the Chair to permit Richard Aylard to speak for a second time when he effectively used the stand to 'lecture'  and 'warn' SDC members that deferral was not an option for them as Thames had 'run out of time'  to comply with the EU directive. Tough luck I say to that. Thames had a decade to sort out its problems and prepare the site to conform to the directive. They chose not to do so but rather to pay themselves huge bonuses and divert UK profits to the holding company in Germany.  "If the reason that approval was given was to give the Council enforcement 'teeth' through the S106 agreement why is this not being used robustly?I think the Council Environmental Dept would argue that the S106  IS indeed being used robustly. The problem is the S106 itself which is so weak that it is not in itself robust. Thames Water worded the agreement regarding storm tank usage as a  "heads we win - tails you lose" document. The Environment Director either signed off this document because he knew the department would have no power to force Thames to improve matters i.e. less work for him and his staff, or he was too stupid to understand that Thames was taking him for a ride.  As repeatedly stated, within a week of the fateful approval when we met Richard Aylard at Mogden, he was still laughing at the fact that he got everything he wanted and had to give nothing!

Steve Taylor ● 5067d

"I think a more productive way forward would be (to) question the actions of Environment since the approval, given it has the improved powers. Perhaps a proper Scrutiny into the matter is called for."I agree with thisentirely in as far as it goes, however I do not think we should look at Environment's actions following approval in isolation from the department's conduct before and during the meeting.Nobody would appear to have picked up on the significance of Environment trying to lobby me prior to the meeting in an attempt to sell me the case for approval.  Two important points need to be kept in mind here:#1. It would be unlawful for any officer of the council to try to lobby a member of the SDC in an effort to persuade him or her to vote in a particular way.#2. It would be unlawful for the leader of a political group on the council to exert pressure on any member of his or her group to vote in a particular way at SDC.I was lobbied by two very senior officers of the council in my capacity as Leader of the Community Group, one of them at Environment.  Of course, as I was not at that time a member of SDC #1 would not apply.  So what, then, was the point in trying to bend my ear?  Unless, of course, the object of the exercise was to try to induce scenario #2.  A scenario in which, if I had played ball, I would have been conducting myself in an unlawful way.One must then ask why there was considered to be a need to lobby me in the first place.  The role of officers in planning matters is to present the facts as they are, to give advice as honestly and impartiality as is possible under the circumstances, and then to leave the decision to the elected members at SDC.I cannot prove any of the above which is why I have not named names, but I believe you know the identities of the two officers concerned and they could not have been more senior.If we can get to the bottom of why a vote of approval was considered so important to these two officers we may have half a chance of identifying the other stench that has pervaded this issue for too long.

Phil Andrews ● 5070d

Hi Steve,I think you need to be more even-handed your evaluation of the meeting since originally none of the Tory Group voted in favour of the expansion: they were persuaded to by the Labour members who voted in favour of the expansion on the ground that a) if they did not Thames water would appeal and that the situation would then be worseb) that the Council would retain much better control of the situation by virtue of an improved legal agreement. (see below)I have no doubt that all Councillors voted in a manner they thought best at the time: they just didn't have the best advice to hand to make an informed decision and deferral would have been the best option while they equipped themselves with this. They also allowed themselves to be bullied by the Thames Water rep.But the situation is what it is and slagging Councillors off  - I doubt one of them stood for election without wanting to serve and improve their community - does not resolve anything.  I think a more productive way forward would be question the actions of  Environment since the approval, given it has the improved powers. Perhaps a proper Scrutiny into the matter is called for."The meeting of 4th March 2009 was a curious one in that the vote on this important matter was taken twice. the result of the first vote was:For -  Councillors Cadbury and Cooper Against -  Councillors Barwood, L. Bath, B. Fisher, Hardy, O’Reilly and Reid Abstain -  Councillors Dakers and Oulds. (from the minutes)"Councillor Reid moved refusal of the proposals on the grounds that they would unduly prejudice the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and that neighbouring residents were not yet safeguarded and more work needed to be done. She was not convinced that the odour would be lessened or controlled and felt that the proposed mitigation measures did not go far enough. Councillor B. Fisher seconded Councillor Reid’s proposal."That would normally have been the end of the debate and we would have moved to the next item however:"Councillor Cadbury raised concerns that, if the Committee refused the application, Thames Water would appeal and it would be determined by an independent inspector or the Secretary of State and the Council would lose its leverage in terms of the S.106 obligations; she felt that the obligations could be weakened if they were determined by the inspector. She stated that she opposed the proposal for refusal and felt that the application should be approved and the S.106 obligations strengthened.Councillor Cooper felt that, in an ideal world, they would not want the sewage works at all, but it was there and he felt that the application was the Council’s opportunity to have some control, which they would not have if it was refused. He felt that some of the S.106 contributions would be lost if the application went to appeal.  Councillor L. Bath asked officer’s views about the application going to appeal.  Benita Edwards advised that the proposed refusal would be referred to the Mayor. It was then up to the Mayor whether he wanted to determine the application himself because he had the power to step in as the planning authority and could decide what planning obligations, if any, would be required. If he did not call it in, the refusal would stand. The refusal decision could then be appealed. Ms Edwards advised that the decision notice could not be issued until it was known whether the Mayor or the Secretary of State had decided to call it in. An appeal on this particular scheme could be quite expensive to the Council if it went to a public inquiry.  Councillor Oulds suggested that the applicant may wish to revise the application and resubmit it because that course of action would be quicker than going through a public inquiry.  Benita Edwards advised that, if Members wanted the applicant to modify the application, they should defer rather than refuse. The appeal costs were not a material planning consideration, but she had a duty to give the Council the information so that the Committee was fully informed of the risks to the Council. She advised that the Committee must have sound planning reasons to refuse the application. Costs did not necessarily follow the event and there would only be costs to the Council if the Council was considered to have been acting unreasonably.  Councillor Oulds felt that, if the application was deferred, it may give time to the applicant to consider covering the tanks. Ms Edwards advised that it would be useful for the Committee to give clear guidance to the applicant about what they wanted to see. She noted that the applicant could appeal if the time limit for determining the application had expired.  Cathy Gallagher advised that the applicant could still appeal on non-determination. Thames Water had a start date in mind to meet their requirements for the works to begin and officers felt that the issue should be resolved as a question of expediency. She felt that deferral would only work if something could be achieved, for example, the covering of the storm water tanks, but this had been discussed with Thames Water and she did not feel that it could be done.  Councillor Hardy proposed deferral.  Mr Aylard advised that deferral would not help because Thames Water could agree to a reduction in the number of storm tanks events from seven to six, but would not be able to get the funding to cover the additional tanks because they could not go to Ofwat without a case for the customer paying for it."The debate continued for a while longer - (you can read the complete minutes at http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=40619 and I urge everyone to do so so no-one can say I have given a biased account) - before a second vote was taken:"Members voted on the officer’s recommendation and Councillor Cooper’s amendments, that the number of times the storm tanks were used was reduced from seven to six per year and a ring of H2S sensors be used around the digesters complex, rather than a single sensor, as follows:  For -  Councillors Barwood, L. Bath, Cadbury, Cooper, Dakers, B. Fisher, O’Reilly, Oulds and Reid.  Against -  Councillor Hardy Abstain -  None."I expect everyone will draw their own conclusions bjut I hope people will ask questions too:Was the second vote legal? Although proper for Members to consider the consequences of voting against approval why does it seem that they took more notice of Richard Aylard from Thames Water than their own officers?If the reason that approval was given was to give the Council enforcement 'teeth' through the S106 agreement why is this not being used robustly?There may be good reasons for this but perhaps these might be explained here."

Jon Hardy ● 5070d

"Although proper for Members to consider the consequences of voting against approval why does it seem that they took more notice of Richard Aylard from Thames Water than their own officers?" To compound the blunders made by the Tories and to remind everyone of the fiasco of the badly chaired SDC, it should be noted that normally members of the public, who have offered written objections,  are permitted to address the committee before the vote is taken. In this instance the letters were sent out to residents after the deadline  to request permission to speak had already passed!!!  I, and a neighbour of mine at the time who happens to hold a PhD in chemical engineering, objected to this shoddy behaviour by the Planning Dept.  I therefore emailed the Chair of SDC, Cllr Sheila O'Reilly, the Director of Environment and Planning, Michael Jordan,  and every Councillor sitting on the SDC and requested that, in light of my request to speak being submitted after the deadline (through no fault of my own),  the Mogden application be deferred until the next SDC sitting so that I and my neighbour could speak.  I followed up my email with a phone call to the Director of Planning but was told by his PA that he was not available to speak to me but she confirmed that in checking his email in-box, my email had been read! I was therefore quite surprised when the meeting opened and the Chair, Cllr Sheila O'Reilly,  made no mention of my request and the meeting proceeded.  Cllr Ruth Cadbury interrupted up and drew attention to my email but the Chair (and here's the crunch) said that she had not read any emails because she had been to the optician and was still having trouble with her eyes so she had not read any emails for the day!!!  You couldn't make it up!In any event said temporarily visually impaired Tory  Chair of SDC gleefully announced that the meeting would go ahead as it was not a residents 'right' to speak -  To quote her  "the Agenda stands - the application will be heard"

Steve Taylor ● 5070d

Hi Dawn,I wasn't in the slightest bit miffed: Council procedures can seem byzantine unless one has had to learn all about them. I've always been grateful to those who took the time to explain things to me.Paul Fisher rightly declared an interest which would have cast doubts on his impartially and ability to make up his mind based on the evidence before him at the meeting: he had no choice but to recluse himself.The meeting of 4th March 2009 was a curious one in that the vote on this important matter was taken twice. the result of the first vote was:For -  Councillors Cadbury and Cooper Against -  Councillors Barwood, L. Bath, B. Fisher, Hardy, O’Reilly and Reid Abstain -  Councillors Dakers and Oulds. (from the minutes)"Councillor Reid moved refusal of the proposals on the grounds that they would unduly prejudice the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and that neighbouring residents were not yet safeguarded and more work needed to be done. She was not convinced that the odour would be lessened or controlled and felt that the proposed mitigation measures did not go far enough. Councillor B. Fisher seconded Councillor Reid’s proposal." That would normally have been the end of the debate and we would have moved to the next item however:"Councillor Cadbury raised concerns that, if the Committee refused the application, Thames Water would appeal and it would be determined by an independent inspector or the Secretary of State and the Council would lose its leverage in terms of the S.106 obligations; she felt that the obligations could be weakened if they were determined by the inspector. She stated that she opposed the proposal for refusal and felt that the application should be approved and the S.106 obligations strengthened.Councillor Cooper felt that, in an ideal world, they would not want the sewage works at all, but it was there and he felt that the application was the Council’s opportunity to have some control, which they would not have if it was refused. He felt that some of the S.106 contributions would be lost if the application went to appeal.  Councillor L. Bath asked officer’s views about the application going to appeal.  Benita Edwards advised that the proposed refusal would be referred to the Mayor. It was then up to the Mayor whether he wanted to determine the application himself because he had the power to step in as the planning authority and could decide what planning obligations, if any, would be required. If he did not call it in, the refusal would stand. The refusal decision could then be appealed. Ms Edwards advised that the decision notice could not be issued until it was known whether the Mayor or the Secretary of State had decided to call it in. An appeal on this particular scheme could be quite expensive to the Council if it went to a public inquiry.  Councillor Oulds suggested that the applicant may wish to revise the application and resubmit it because that course of action would be quicker than going through a public inquiry.  Benita Edwards advised that, if Members wanted the applicant to modify the application, they should defer rather than refuse. The appeal costs were not a material planning consideration, but she had a duty to give the Council the information so that the Committee was fully informed of the risks to the Council. She advised that the Committee must have sound planning reasons to refuse the application. Costs did not necessarily follow the event and there would only be costs to the Council if the Council was considered to have been acting unreasonably.  Councillor Oulds felt that, if the application was deferred, it may give time to the applicant to consider covering the tanks. Ms Edwards advised that it would be useful for the Committee to give clear guidance to the applicant about what they wanted to see. She noted that the applicant could appeal if the time limit for determining the application had expired.  Cathy Gallagher advised that the applicant could still appeal on non-determination. Thames Water had a start date in mind to meet their requirements for the works to begin and officers felt that the issue should be resolved as a question of expediency. She felt that deferral would only work if something could be achieved, for example, the covering of the storm water tanks, but this had been discussed with Thames Water and she did not feel that it could be done.  Councillor Hardy proposed deferral.  Mr Aylard advised that deferral would not help because Thames Water could agree to a reduction in the number of storm tanks events from seven to six, but would not be able to get the funding to cover the additional tanks because they could not go to Ofwat without a case for the customer paying for it."The debate continued for a while longer - (you can read the complete minutes at http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=40619 and I urge everyone to do so so no-one can say I have given a biased account) - before a second vote was taken:"Members voted on the officer’s recommendation and Councillor Cooper’s amendments, that the number of times the storm tanks were used was reduced from seven to six per year and a ring of H2S sensors be used around the digesters complex, rather than a single sensor, as follows:  For -  Councillors Barwood, L. Bath, Cadbury, Cooper, Dakers, B. Fisher, O’Reilly, Oulds and Reid.  Against -  Councillor Hardy Abstain -  None."I expect everyone will draw their own conclusions bjut I hope people will ask questions too:Was the second vote legal? Although proper for Members to consider the consequences of voting against approval why does it seem that they took more notice of Richard Aylard from Thames Water than their own officers?If the reason that approval was given was to give the Council enforcement 'teeth' through the S106 agreement why is this not being used robustly?There may be good reasons for this but perhaps these might be explained here.

Jon Hardy ● 5071d

This thread started by Cllr Todd has become quite long but its interesting to note that he has now scuttled off as he has no more excuses or answers. It is important to note that the CURRENT problems being experienced by residents of Richmond and Hounslow are 100% the result of Tory Party ineptitude. Residents will never forget that Phil Andrews, Vince Cable, Ann Keen and the late Mike Carmen jointly succeeded in getting Ofwat to approve £42 million of ratepayer money to improve the site and cover all the Storm Tanks. Residents will never forget that when the Tories took control of the Council, the Tory Lead Member for Environment, without any consultation with residents or indeed her coalition partners, agreed with Thames Water to only cover 2 of the 8 tanks and thus allowed Thames to only spend £30 million of the allocated £42 million. Why she did that is anyone's guess. Why she permitted Thames to pocket the balance is anyone's guess.  Why the Tory Council Leader didn't have his eye on the ball is anyone's guess. When residents held meetings with the Tory Leadership and explained the situation in explicit detail (together with the Parliamentary Candidate Mary Macleod)  the Tories gave the impression of being willing to rectify this massive mistake by insisting that Thames covered all the remaining tanks as a condition of the planning application being considered. The Tories gave residents the impression that they would do just that..... End result -  they did a cowardly u-turn and unanimously approved the application without any robust condition attached to covering the storm tanks which are now used constantly.  Tories could and should have voted deferral and the application would have been thrown out and Thames Water would have covered the storm tanks immediately. That is a fact.  Let's not forget that Cllr Hearn even admitted that he didn't understand the application so he "voted on a hunch"  Not a single Tory Cllr bothered to even visit the site before voting. Cllr Barwood used the pathetic excuse that 'she had never been invited'.You couldn't make it up!

Steve Taylor ● 5071d

Okay I’ll help you out here Dawn, let’s play spot the liar:“It is very sad that Cllr Todd cannot remember the days when his party ruled as a coalition and his coalition partner voted vehemently against the expansion. I wonder if the name Jon Hardy rings any distant bells for Cllr Todd?”Steve Taylor, 12th May 2011 20:48“Every single ICG Councillor in the coalition opposed the application but their voices went unheard”Steve Taylor, 15th August 2011 23:00“Not one ICG councillor voted for the expansion and all were completely against it Dawn and our coalition partners at the time were fully aware of the fact”Paul Fisher, 10th September 2011 17:07“The other ICG councillor on the SDC, Jon Hardy, took part in the debate, spoke eloquently against the proposals and voted against them.”Phil Andrews, 11th September 2011 00:25And yet in response to these repeated statements clearly and conclusively demonstrating that Jon Hardy actually voted against Mogden expansion at SDC you come out with these crackers (npi):“Responsibility must be accepted by all who belonged to this committee, each member of that committee should have been voting for the benefit of our community not party politics(I scratch your back you scratch mine attitude)they all had the opportunity to vote Yea or Nay not abstain.”Dawn Hardy, 18th September 2011 16:21“Paul, my apologies for not mentioning Jon Hardy's name according to Phil he was the guilty party who wasted his vote by abstaining.”Dawn Hardy, 18th September 2011 16:53“his vote may have turned the tide also Jon Hardys, whether you are a Politician or a Councilor you should not Abstain, that vote was needed he might just as well have not turned up.”Dawn Hardy, 19th September 2011 12:35Dawn, before this exchange I always had you down as an honest broker if sometimes a little confused but the above clearly itemised quotes and your point blank refusal to acknowledge that you are wrong reveal you to be a deliberate liar.The only question that remains to be asked is why you feel the need to conduct yourself in this way, but I guess you won't be answering that one any time soon either.

Phil Andrews ● 5071d

"I would certainly be interested to know whether, with the benefit of hindsight, councillors who voted in support of expansion still believe they were right to do so."It is not surprising that Tory Cllr Todd refuses to answer this simple question raised by Phil Andrews. He has also repeatedly been asked to answer the very simple question on whether he and his party support Hounslow and Richmond residents in their fight for justice or if they stand firm in their support for Macquarie Group Investment Bankers'  expansion of the works. However it should be stressed that the Tory Cllrs who voted on the expansion also had the benefit of foresight as they were fully briefed by MRAG and had the benefit of professional expert opinion regarding the process of sewage and odour control and the failures of Thames Water over the previous decade. Their behaviour is even more bizarre and unforgivable because the Professor employed by LBH to give evidence in the Abatement Case heard in the Feltham Magistrates Court is the same expert employed by residents to give evidence in the High Court of Justice. The legal advice given to Tory Cllrs was very simply not to consider the expansion application until the High Court of Justice had heard all evidence to support the allegations of mismanagement and neglect at Mogen. Interestingly when Thames Water was sold by RWE to Macquarie Group, a couple of hundred  million £'s was deducted from the sale price and set aside to deal with compensation claims and pending litigations against Thames Water.  I wonder if the last Tory administration of LBH also set aside the odd £100 million to deal with possible compensation claims against the Environment Dept for this major blunder and I wonder how Cllr Todd and his cronies will explain this to taxpayers!

Steve Taylor ● 5074d

DawnAll planning decisions at the London Borough of Hounslow were at the time taken either by the Sustainable Development Committee, by one of the five Area Palnning Committees or by officers acting under delegated authority, depending upon the size and scale of the development in question and whether or not there was opposition to it within the community.Under the current administration the Area Planning Committees have been abolished, but the SDC remains.I am not saying this is necessarily the right way or the wrong way to do things, but it's how it is.You may be interested to know that a motion denouncing the decision taken by SDC over Mogden was passed by the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee shortly after it was taken.  The motion was supported by all ICG councillors and by the Lib Dem on IBAC, and opposed by the Labour and Conservative councillors.It was largely a symbolic gesture, with no power to overturn the SDC decision, but this should give you some indication as to how the respective parties and groups lined up on this particular issue.You should also be aware that some 24 hours or so after the result of the local elections last year one of the most vociferous Conservative Party spokespersons on these forums was publicly bragging about the result, and about what he seemed to believe would be the permanent demise of the ICG as a consequence.  This despite the fact that Labour had just the day before regained the London Borough of Hounslow with a ten seat majority.When I said to you that decent Conservative supporters like yourself had been badly let down by their local representatives it was not an observation made lightly.

Phil Andrews ● 5078d

Quite frankly I do not believe that I have made a fool of myself or that you or anyone else is capable of humiliating me. If you had read that which I had written in its proper context you would have seen that I said that you had ALL failed miserably.I do appreciate you telling me just how this dreadful action took place, I cannot fully comprehend how such a vote took place with only 13 Members of the Council-5 Tory-5 Labour-1 ICG also 1 Lib Dem  having taken off Mr Fisher,how was this possible when we have at least 60 Councilors that supposedly represent our Community. This group apparently made up the Substantial Development Committee the name in itself indicates that it should have been ALL of the Council Members who had a VOTE not just a selected few being that it was such an important factor for the whole of our community what was is 42 Million Pounds where did the money that was not used go to?In my ignorance I presumed quite wrongly that anything appertaining to we the community was voted on by the full council this as you have quite rightly pointed out is not the case. This next question is extremely important WHY do we have so many Councilors when they do not represent us as they should do and as we expect them to.Is it common for committees to be formed with so few councilors admitted into the decision.I could go on however I really do not think it necessary as we now all know that it was 5 Tories-5 Labourites and 1 Lib Dem that sold us down the proverbial river. We should start a protest as was done with the Libraries, collectively we have a voice and will have to be heard perhaps then something constructive will be done.

Dawn Hardy ● 5078d

DawnAs I am the target of what is a very ill-informed criticism from your good self you will understand the temptation I feel to humiliate you for your complete and demonstrable lack of knowledge both as to how the Sustainable Development Committee (SDC) at the London Borough of Hounslow operates and of the whole Mogden issue in particular.However out of respect for what I think is your genuine affection for the local community and the sincerity with which you try to speak I will instead simply offer you some heartfelt advice, which I give with the honest intention of helping you to avoid making a fool of yourself in the future.Research the issues, learn how the process works and be sure of your facts before you issue forth.  In that way you will not leave yourself so open to ridicule.The bare facts concerning the initial vote on the proposal to expand Mogden are these:The SDC during the previous administration comprised, if I recall correctly, 5 Conservative councillors, 5 Labour, 2 ICG and one Liberal Democrat.  I may be slightly out with these figures but this was pretty much the proportionality of it, the two major parties had equal representation and between them they made up the large majority of the Committee.When the Mogden proposal came to SDC one of the ICG councillors (Paul Fisher) was excluded under planning rules from taking part as he was party to a residents' legal action against Thames Water and could therefore be deemed to have had a prejudicial interest in the matter.The other ICG councillor on the SDC, Jon Hardy, took part in the debate, spoke eloquently against the proposals and voted against them.The Labour councillors on SDC were in favour of the development from the start and in my view had clearly been well briefed prior to the meeting.  Their position was, at least, consistent throughout.The Conservative councillors intitially gave an impression of being against the proposal, however after an intense period of lobbying by both the Labour councillors and the officers who were presenting the report, in the latter case unprecedented in its intensity to the point that they more or less refused to accept a vote against, they changed their minds and voted in favour.As a background to this you need to understand that the SDC is a quasi-judicial body and individual members are required to vote as individuals and not according to a party position.  That is the theory.  In this instance though the Labour councillors supported the proposal together, the Conservative councillors at first opposed it together and then finally they capitulated together.The solitary Liberal Democrat on SDC, Andrew Dakers, voted in support of the proposal on the basis of the information provided on the night by officers, but later came to the view that he had been wrong to do so when it was demonstrated to him that the information provided to members on the night had been selective, and that pertinent facts had been withheld.So you see Dawn, this was not a case of ICG councillors voting with their Conservative coalition partners to force through a development in the face of Labour opposition.It was a case of Conservative councillors raising two fingers to their coalition partners and voting alongside the Labour councillors so as not to upset the officers, whose continued co-operation they needed in order to effectively carry out work on projects that were politically important to themselves.For us in the ICG, this was probably the first time it had dawned on us just how much contempt we were actually held in by our so-called partners, and how little value was placed upon our contribution to the coalition other than as voting fodder for their own political programme, which to all intents and purposes began and ended with low Council Tax.Before that fateful evening we had laboured naively in the belief that if we conducted ourselves with honour and integrity towards our partners then they would similarly demonstrate honour and integrity towards us.For some inexplicable reason I more than any other member of my Group had forgotten the lesson that I had spent many painful years learning about the way in which the big parties operate - that unquestioning, idiot-style allegiance to the rosette is absolute and that considerations such as decency, loyalty, honesty, honour, and least of all public interest, would never be permitted to stand in the way of it.  I accept full personal responsibility for this failure.In my, in retrospect possibly naive, opinion the relationship between the two coalition groups prior to the Mogden vote had been a good one based upon mutual respect and a real desire to deliver good local government based upon those many areas in which a commonality of purpose existed.  After it the contempt in which we had probably always been held by our partners became more and more obvious.  When the last "coalition" budget was presented to Borough Council in March 2010 the ICG had barely even been shown it, far less had it been discussed between us.Then we discovered that, had the possibility of a renewed coalition arisen following the local election of 2010, the Conservative plan was to attempt to negotiate a coalition agreement with some ICG councillors and not others, in other words to attempt to break our organisation in two by offering sweeteners to those individual ICG councillors whom they deemed to be the most fickle and easy to flatter and manipulate.Do you think this is a decent and honourable way to behave?  Do you really want to be the one to argue the case for people who conduct themselves in this way on a public internet forum?Dawn, I do not criticise you for being a supporter of the Conservative Party.  I am sure you have very good reasons for your choice, and whatever they are I respect them.But I do believe you are sufficiently independent and free-thinking not to give a political blank cheque to a local party that conducts business in the way that I have described.At the very least you may wish to ask yourself whether the election of a Labour administration that is likely to be in office for a very long time if not forever is a price that you think was worth paying.  Because I am not hearing any expressions of regret, let alone apologies, from the local representatives of the party you support.  Many Conservative supporters, and indeed members, of my acquaintance feel very let down by the antics of these people.  Do you too not think you deserve better?

Phil Andrews ● 5080d

DawnMorally it is certainly their responsibility but Thames Water has always put the interests of its shareholders first, and naturally those interests involve spending as little money as possible and evading their duty of care when they can.Even when some money was spent, to little avail, Thames obtained permission from the regulator OFWAT to raise that money by increasing the charge it makes to its customers.  In other words we, the victims, had to pay to remedy the environmental nuisance that Thames had been inflicting upon us!In the event, having raised the money from the customer Thames spent some of it on improvements and then pocketed the rest.  Incredibly, this was not unlawful.The council could and should take a much more robust approach but historically has failed to do so.  Senior officers at the authority in particular seem hell bent on doing as little as possible to challenge Thames and have preferred to treat campaigning residents as the enemy instead.Previous Labour administrations did not, in my view, do anything like enough to help residents but we are particularly angry with the Tories because we were in coalition with them and, having secured our support for their own policy objectives, they then turned and stabbed us in the back, basically because they were less concerned about upsetting us than they were about losing the goodwill of their chief officers, some of whom spent the last year of the coalition administration agitating like men demented to minimise in practical terms the ICG influence within the administration.This is not about party politics, and your own preference for the Conservatives as a party should not blind you to the betrayal of our local community that took place on this one isolated issue.  Their crime was a combination of wilful ignorance on the Mogden issue coupled with self-interest in not wanting to jeopardise their good relationship with chief officers over a matter that in the wider scheme of things did not really concern them very much.The chief officers played them like a violin, even producing a feature in the publicly-funded HM Magazine in which the Conservative case was argued against the ICG's case (remember this was supposed to be a coalition administration).  When I asked the then Chief Executive to discipline the officer responsible he wouldn't, and probably couldn't as I suspect he was actually the instigator of the article.As for the Chief Exec himself, he was pretty much untouchable as he had just announced his impending retirement.What had in my view been a very good relationship between the coalition partners hitherto never recovered from this incident and as a consequence Labour may well be running the London Borough of Hounslow for the rest of your life and mine, as an overall Conservative majority is unlikely in Hounslow and no minority group or party is likely to trust them again.The best we can do right now is to maintain a strong, independent presence within the community and try to influence the Labour administration where necessary through calm and friendly persuasion.  Fortunately the councillors we have seem quite amenable to this approach.

Phil Andrews ● 5105d

Its perfectly fair to and correct to blame the Tories for the current mess and environmental disaster. It is true that Labour were in power for nearly 3 decades previously and little was done about Mogden but after several campaigns and mass action by residents from 1999 onwards,  Labours'  Lord Whitty  and Lib Dems'  Vince Cable finally persuaded OFWAT to order Thames Water to use £42 million of ratepayers money to improve the site which included covering all 8 of the open storm tanks. Unfortunately when Labour lost control of Hounslow Council the newly appointed dim-witted Tory lead member for environment allowed Thames Water to only cover 2 of the 8 tanks and spend only £26 million on the so called odour improvement project. Thames pocketed the rest of the money (used it on other sites) and the project failed. When Thames submitted its planning application in 2008  to expand the site, said dimwitted Tory Lead Member had the perfect opportunity to correct the misguided blunder and insist on Thames covering the remaining tanks as a pre-requisite to considering the application. However, instead of even demanding that Senior Officers consult/discuss  with OFWAT, she led the Tory members to vote unanimously to approve the application. Every single ICG Councillor in the coalition opposed the application  but their voices went unheard. Residents will never forget this U-turn by the Tories. The current mess rests firmly on their shoulders and they should hang their heads in shame!  They are responsible for ruining the Borough. They were elected to take tough action to clean up the Borough but instead they made it worse and have simply secured their place on the opposition seats for another 3 decades.

Steve Taylor ● 5106d

Following the massive environmental impact the Mogden operation is having on the Hounslow and Richmond communities I understand the undermentioned has been emailed to thousands of residents. My understanding from legal records is that approx 35,000 residents could be affected by odour and/or mosquitoes from Mogden.  "Dear Residents MRAG has been inundated with complaints about the high levels of stench from Mogden over the past weeks (as well as the return of the Mogden Mosquito) The under mentioned email to Thames Water and local Councillors is for your info. Unfortunately the expansion of Mogden has proved to be unsustainable as far as creating excessive odour is concerned. Whilst MRAG's Environmental Scientist argued and warned the Council that the expansion of the site was not sustainable, the Conservative Lead Member for Environment of the last administration, approved the expansion with the assurance and 'promise' that the Council would  'come down hard' on Thames Water if it was shown that odour increased during the expansion. Unfortunately that has not been the case as the local Tories have walked away from the problem they created.The expansion now approaches the end of the first year of construction (two years to go) and whilst residents have endured increased stench, black fly infestation, mosquitoes, soil stored on the embankment, noise  and general bad housekeeping and mismanagement, no Tory Councillor who supported the expansion has responded to your complaints or concerns. It is disappointing too that our  'new'  MP who promised constituents that Mogden was high on her agenda, has failed to respond to our concerns or your complaints and failed to attend any Residents Liaison Meetings which are held quarterly at Mogden.However, with or without the support of Hounslow Councillors or our MP,  the Mogden Residents Action Group continues to hold Thames Water accountable on behalf of all residents of Hounslow and Richmond Boroughs. Please do continue to log your complaints via ourselves.RgdsMogden Residents Action Group.-----Original Message-----From: MRAGDate: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:51:56 -0400 (EDT)Subject: Mogden out of control again To: mark.grimshaw@thameswater.co.uk, richard.aylard@thameswater.co.ukCC: Michael.Jordan@hounslow.gov.uk, cathy.gallagher@hounslow.gov.uk,    Gerry.McCarthy@hounslow.gov.uk, mary.harpley@hounslow.gov.uk,    mary.macleod.mp@parliament.uk, corinna.smart@hounslow.gov.uk,    pam.fisher@hounslow.gov.uk, Mogden@thameswater.co.uk,    neil.stockdale, Bradley.Fisher@hounslow.gov.uk,    phil@communitygroup.org.uk, ed.mayne@hounslow.gov.uk,    mindu.bains@hounslow.gov.uk, sam.hearn@hounslow.gov.uk,    john.todd@hounslow.gov.uk, trevor.whittall,    barryedwards, cm.e, taylors,    eatonw, isleworthicg, paul.fisherDear Mr GrimshawAs you are aware odour from your Mogden site over the last  days and nights has been horrendous specifically last night when your team was at a loss on how to abate the unlawful nuisance. Please assure this community that you have plan on how to deal with the nuisance and prevent same from escaping the boundaries of your premises during the summer months. i.e. warmer weather and  thunderstorms. Failure to do so would constitute management negligence.  Please advise specifically what went so terribly wrong with your odour management regime last night.RgdsMogden Residents Action Group"

Steve Taylor ● 5153d

When the original vote took place on the proposal to expand Mogden Sewage Treatment Works I was personally lobbied by two very senior officers at the London Borough of Hounslow in what was an attempt to sell me the expansion plans on the grounds that they would give LBH more "control" over Thames Water's activities.Had I been a member of the Sustainable Development Committee (SDC) at the time this would have been unlawful.  However I was not at the time a member of SDC, therefore one must reasonably ask why it was that I had been selected for such lobbying.  I was, of course, Leader of the Community Group on the Council but both of these very senior officers must have known that it would also have been unlawful for me to have attempted to persuade my own colleagues to vote in a particular way, as the SDC is a quasi-judicial body on which party pressure cannot be applied.What, then, was the point of this lobbying?When SDC met to discuss the application the two Labour councillors who spoke on the subject, both of whom appeared extremely well briefed on their subject, successfully sold the development to the Conservative members of SDC on the grounds that it "would give LBH more 'control' over Thames Water's activities".In spite of their best efforts a majority on SDC originally rejected the application.  There then followed an amazing onslaught by the two Labour councillors as well as by officers which effectively amounted to a refusal to accept the decision, to which the lily-livered majority unfortunately succumbed very easily.  I had never before, in all my time as a councillor, witnessed a situation in which elected members had been browbeaten in such a way by their own employees for having taken the "wrong" decision.At the time of the decision I and my ICG colleagues expressed our view that no "control" would be exercised over the activities of Thames Water because there was no will on the part of council officers to do so and that Thames Water, knowing this, would continue to raise two fingers to the neighbouring community with complete impunity.  It gives me no pleasure to have been proved right in this assessment of the situation.Meanwhile Councillor John Todd continues to take a peculiar interest in this whole issue.  His interest has extended to visiting the High Court and sitting through hours of testimony during the legal action brought against Thames Water by residents, and also to relentless sniping against residents' representatives who post on this forum to update visitors about the ongoing problems being caused to the local community (including Councillor Brad Fisher's Hounslow South constituents) by Thames Water.However it has not extended to expressing any kind of support for or goodwill towards the victims of Thames Water's activities.The above is simple fact, I draw no conclusions from it but others should make of it what they will.

Phil Andrews ● 5198d

"a touch of amnesia-again? Cross party support for Mogden expansion."Amnesia must be a terrible thing. I am so fortunate not to suffer from it. It is very sad that Cllr Todd cannot remember the days when his party ruled as a coalition and his coalition partner voted vehemently against the expansion. I wonder if the name Jon Hardy rings any distant bells for Cllr Todd?  Also a great pity that Cllr Todd cannot recognise the fact that his party actually enjoyed  leadership of the Council and was therefore allegedly 'in charge' and had every opportunity legally to oppose the motion to approve. Also he seems to have forgotten that his party appointed its Cllrs as Lead Member for Environment and Chair of the Sustainable Development Committee. Unfortunately (for Cllr Todd et el) the good people of Hounslow will never  forget who stabbed them in the back. However, I am somewhat bemused that whilst Cllr Todd started this thread of his own volition and seemingly wanted updates on Mogden and the general consensus of opinion following the public meeting regarding the so-called 'Independent' survey, when I opine on current  events and the fact that a qualified environmental scientist has expressed the view openly and directly to Thames Water and the London Borough of Hounslow,  in an official and minuted meeting, that the Independent Survey, commissioned whilst under the Environmental Leadership of Tory Cllr Barbara Reid, as a cushion for the blow administered to residents, Cllr Todd offers no comment on what his party intends to do about its cock up. He chooses instead to scurry away saying "it wasn't us, it wasn't us, it wasn't us..." One can only wonder why he started this thread in the first place (within minutes of the farcical public meeting taking place)One can only assume that in his own mind he genuinely believed the farcical meeting went well.  I also wonder why the good Cllr just can't come clean with us and tell us if he is with the thousands of victims in this matter or if he backs Thames Water? Its a very simply question especially for the Cllr who sat in the High Court on many a day and heard expert witness evidence and argument. Surely the Cllr must have a view?

Steve Taylor ● 5201d

Adam,We have indeed discussed this before and whilst I respect your view I can only reiterate that the view of residents'  legal team  (environment and planning) is that deferral was obligatory in this case. Consider that the applicant had already been found guilty under EPA 1990 of causing an unlawful nuisance and the application, to be determined on its merits, had to be considered as exactly that. Quality of deserving; good works; intrinsic rights. It was and remains our view that the merits of the application will be known when the High Court hands down judgement. The law of this land is based on precedents and indeed sets new precedents.  If you look at the Video of the SDC - the then Lead Member for  Environment clearly found that application should be refused. The borough solicitor asked for grounds for refusal and it was agreed that the application was not sustainable. The rest is history because as you know she changed her mind when Thames spokesperson told her they would appeal to the Mayor of London and Secretary of State etc etc.  However - if they had deferred the application - what would have happened next? The Mayor would have been compelled to take legal advice and would no doubt have taken the time to study the disclosed documents and evidence put before the High Court - something LBH didn't seem to recognise as an option. The bottom line is that any appeal by the applicant would have dragged out until the High Court reached its conclusion. What's wrong with that?However - that's history and LBH will have to answer to that in due course. The purpose of this thread started by Cllr Todd is to glean information on how the Council are handling the expansion program and how the conditions of the S106 are being met. Sadly they are not and the independent survey has received much comment from expert witnesses and residents' legal team. Whilst Cllr Todd is aware of the involvement of his party in agreeing the S106 he is also aware that the outcome of the litigation will render much sewage on the hands and faces of his party colleagues. Cllr Todd is also aware that to pacify residents his administration dangled a carrot to constituents by serving a number of Abatement Notices on the applicant. Unfortunately these notices were served in such a rush before the election that the Council 'forgot' to consult with residents expert witnesses resulting in the Notices being not really worth the paper they are written on.  There was absolutely no doubt in our minds that the notices were so poorly drafted that they would be openly inviting Thames Water to appeal. In fact I believe two of the six notices were withdrawn by Hounslow within a couple of weeks of issuance and a quick glance over by Thames' legal team.  It thus comes as no surprise that the magistrate handling this LBH case has postponed the appeal until such time as he can study the High Court Judgement in detail. One wonders just what type of Environmental Services Director would sign off a planning application (as sustainable)  with his right hand and sign off six abatement notices with his left hand simultaneouslyIt just makes you think doesn't it?  The SDC wouldn't recognise the importance and authority of the  High Court of Justice,  but a local  magistrate insists upon it!

Steve Taylor ● 5358d

Residents'  fight for justice is being being thwarted by Hounslow Council and the lethargy of  the Steering Committee Chair as emails to the Interim Chief Executive and the Steering Committee  remain unanswered and important information is not forthcoming.-----Original Message-----From: stevetaylorDate: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:44:20 ESTSubject: URGENT - Mogden Group Litigation To: michael.frater@hounslow.gov.uk, jane.scott@hounslow.gov.ukCC: richard.gruet@hounslow.gov.uk, Dear Mr FraterResidents are becoming increasingly concerned at the length of time it is taking Environmental Services Dept to deal with this relatively simple but extremely urgent and  important matter. Residents have made it clear that there are issues they want to be made known to the High Court of Justice before Mr Justice Ramsey hands down his judgement. The MRAG Committee requested information  from the Steering Committee Chair more than a week ago but no information has been  forthcoming despite a reminder. Residents' solicitors therefore requested the information from Mr McCarthy directly. Whilst it is regrettable to note Mr McCarthy is now away from office on urgent family business I am surprised by his response to solicitors simply stating  "I do not have a copy of the draft report and am therefore unable to help with this request"Whilst I would have thought the office of the Head of Pollution Control should have been provided with  copies some weeks ago, if not demanded a copies prior to the public meeting of 3 November, I am extremely concerned that no effort appears to have been made to obtain and provide the requested documentation.I urge you to intervene before it is too late and instruct those concerned to let us have the requested documents by return.Yours sincerelySteve Taylor -----Original Message-----From: stevetaylorDate: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:48:29 ESTSubject: RE: Mogden GLO  To: Cathy.GallagherDear CathyIn Gerry's absence could you please forward as a matter of urgency the following documents, relating to the Independent Odour Research Project, to residents'  solicitor Neil Stockdale with copy to MRAG.  Reports on findings of independent consultant as presented to Steering Committee on 7th and 25th October. Final report of ENTEC that underlies the 3 November public presentation of findings. Draft copy of minutes of the public meeting of 3 November.MRAG has already requested these documents from the steering Committee Chair but it would appear he does not appreciate the urgency of the situation.Many thanks & kind regardsSteve Taylor

Steve Taylor ● 5373d

John The info provided on Hounslow's webpage is something instigated at the behest of residents by Cllr Jon Hardy when he took over as Lead Member.  The reasoning behind it was so that Cllrs and the community could have a clear idea of what is going on at the site and to ensure that Cllr Barbara Reid's tough words and promise to SDC that LBH 'will come down hard on Thames Water'  for any breaches would ensure some action. Unfortunately as Jon Hardy is no longer a Councillor it seems that nobody is taking the reigns and maintaining the impetus of Jon's hard work on this. Now that you have drawn our attention to the visits by LBH we can see what a farce the procedure has become. If you consider just the September visits which took place at the same time the independent surveyor was on site and discovered the odorous uncovered skips (and provided photographs at the public meeting), we wonder why the same negligence was not noted by Hounslow Council during their weekly visits. We note also numerous exceedences of the maximum permitted H2S levels of 0.015 ppm where no reason is provided for the unlawful exceedence and to make matters worse, the column provided for Thames Water to account for the unacceptable odour levels has not even been completed. In some cases the levels have been exceeded by 300%. It appears to me that Thames Water is still being permitted to run rough-shod over LBH, the tough words of Cllr Reid count for nothing and the expansion is indeed proving to be wholly unsustainable.       "On the 24 September, the southside monitor recorded activity exceeding the trigger level from around 15.53-17.33, peaking at 0.04ppm at around 17.13. On the 26 September, the eastside monitor slightly exceeded the trigger level for around ten minutes from 13.50-1400, peaking at around 0.019ppm. On the 29 September the eastside odour monitor exceeded the trigger level for approximately 20 minutes, from around 20.46-21.06, peaking at 0.028ppm at around 21.06. This activity was recorded in the odour log. Later the same day, a record in the odour log showed that odour monitor 7 spiked at 22.17 and this is attributed to digester gas levels. On the 02 October, the eastside monitor recorded activity exceeding the trigger level from around 22.28-22.58, peaking at 0.05ppm at around 22.38. On the 05 October, the southside monitor slightly exceeded the trigger level. On the 06 October the eastside odour monitor measured an exceedence of the trigger level for approximately 20 minutes, from around 6.24-6.44, peaking at around 0.034ppm." Nothing more than a useless tick box regime is it?

Steve Taylor ● 5383d

Topic: Joint Efforts and Coalitions      Forum Home  Posted by: Steve Taylor Date/Time: 04/11/10 12:41:00  And.......not to confuse coalitions with joint efforts and goodwill on behalf of communities, it was indeed a great pleasure to see  Ed Mayne (Lab), Corinna Smart (Lab), John Todd (Cons), Sam Hearne (Cons), Brad Fisher (Cons), Phil Andrews (ICG) and Arnie Gibbons (Richmond Lib Dem)  at the Civic Centre last night in support of residents'  fight against Thames Water to improve the environment of Hounslow and Richmond boroughs. Special thanks indeed to Ed Mayne, Brad Fisher and Phil Andrews for their relentless and probing questions of Thames Water management. The meeting was indeed proof that when politicians put petty politics behind them, they can do great good in joint efforts to improve matters for all.  Topic: Re:Joint Efforts and Coalitions      Forum Home  Posted by: Phil Andrews Date/Time: 04/11/10 12:47:00  I agree with that Steve.  I should point out too in the interests of accuracy that Isleworth councillors Sue Sampson and Mindu Bains were also present, as were Conservatives Sam Hearn, John Todd and Lin Davies. Topic: Re:Re:Joint Efforts and Coalitions      Forum Home  Posted by: Steve Taylor Date/Time: 04/11/10 12:55:00  "I should point out too in the interests of accuracy that Isleworth councillors Sue Sampson and Mindu Bains were also present, as were Conservatives Sam Hearn, John Todd and Lin Davies."Thanks Phil - I did mention John Todd and Sam Hearn and all others I chatted to after the meeting. The others you mention didn't indtroduce themselves to me so I had no idea they were there. PS - the meeting got quite heated towards the end with Barry and Ed taking the lead.

John Todd ● 5387d