Written evidence submitted by the Save
King's Stairs Gardens Action Group
OVERVIEW
The Save King's Stairs Gardens Action Group agrees
that it is important to have a good waste water infrastructure.
It is essential, however, the decision-making process
does not lose sight of the fine detail of any large scale project.
A full and proper assessment must be carried out, using a sound
methodology, and should be subjected to the scrutiny of a third
party. There should not be any unnecessary destruction of the
environment. London's green spaces are vital both for environmental
and for social reasons, and they should only be damaged or destroyed
by any project as a last resort. The WW NPS should include appropriate
provisions to ensure this.
Whilst DEFRA's WW NPS consultation does not deal
with specific sites for the Thames Tunnel, it is important that
it receives the input of local communities so that it understands
the severe impact on them and on the environment from the existing
plans. We need to ensure that the WW NPS is sufficiently robust
so that the decision-making body can undertake its assessment
with accurate and complete information.
Under the current process for the Thames Tunnel the
applicant is proposing to use at least one green space on the
basis of inaccurate and incomplete information and without providing
full or up-to-date material about alternative brownfield sites.
It appears, in the example set out below, that Thames
Water ("TW") has failed to select preferred sites on
the basis of the principles set out in the draft WW NPS, and that
its site selection needs to be reviewed in the light of this and
a new consultation carried out.
THAMES TUNNEL
The WW NPS states that "London has a key role
in supporting the national economy and the reputation of the UK.
The unsatisfactory intermittent discharges cause reputational
risk to the UK, detracting from the appeal of the river in the
nation's capital, which is otherwise a great asset to residents
and visitors alike".
Equally, there is a real reputational risk if this
project is not delivered responsibly and if key assets, such as
riverside parkland where residents and tourists alike can enjoy
the Thames, are destroyed unnecessarily.
In the case outlined below, public parkland will
be destroyed; the Thames Path and Jubilee Walkway (which showcases
London landmarks and arguably provides one of the best views in
the capital) will be displaced; mature trees will be felled and
an important nature corridor which connects to the river will
be removed. All this will happen unless TW accepts that there
is a brownfield alternative that provides an equal if not a better
engineering solution for its project.
The WW NPS also states that:
"The unique scale and complexity of the development
will lead to an equally large and complex planning process and
the Government has a clear interest in ensuring that the planning
process goes as smoothly as possible, to ensure that there are
not significant delays in addressing the problems caused by these
sewage overflows, while ensuring the process is transparent and
that all interested points of view are heard and considered properly."
"For the Thames Tunnel scheme, its objective is to ensure
the environmental objectives for the River Thames are met and
therefore the UK's compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive."
Again it is essential that the perceived urgency
in the delivery of this project is not at the cost of full and
proper research into the appropriate route and site selection
and that the proposals put forward by TW are subject to full and
independent scrutiny.
THREAT TO
GREEN SPACE—KEY
EXAMPLE
King's Stairs Gardens ("KSG"), in Rotherhithe,
London SE16 is a prime example of how vital public parkland and
adequate play space is under threat from a major infrastructure
project (the Thames Tunnel—"TT") when alternatives
are clearly available. It is essential that the importance of
cleaning up the Thames does not result in a blinkered view of
the project and that its huge scale means that insufficient emphasis
is placed on the selection of individual sites along the route.
It is vital that green spaces are given the utmost protection
and that the importance of the project does not give the applicant
the licence to use green space rather than search for more appropriate
brownfield sites.
KSG is situated in a densely populated residential
area in a deprived borough, which has a deficiency of open space.
It is recognised for its environmental importance and its protection
has the backing of every member of Southwark council, the local
MP Simon Hughes, GLA members, community and environmental groups,
local businesses, thousands of local residents and the wider public
and the leading environmental campaigner and conservationist Professor
David Bellamy, OBE. The Mayor of London has also expressed his
reservations to TW (see GLA Thames Tunnel consultation documents).
Thames Water has been sent many strong, detailed
and technical submissions explaining the reasons for the opposition
to the use of the park, and provided with information on brownfield
alternatives. There are too many submissions to quote in this
report, but this further information can be submitted on request.
The current plans for the unnecessary destruction
of KSG and the non-selection of a brownfield site can be contributed
to a number of failings by TW:
— its
failure to provide a full and proper assessment of the site by
using out of date maps, overlooking key educational buildings
and incorrectly recording the height, occupation and presence
of nearby houses;
— its
failure to differentiate between brownfield and greenfield sites
in its site selection methodology, and to give sufficient weight
to the community and environmental impact;
— its
failure to provide up to date information on alternative brownfield
sites by dismissing such sites early in the process and not monitoring
their renewed availability because of changing market conditions;
— its
failure to undertake an adequate consultation by providing a short
list of one—KSG—with no alternatives (by proposing
only one site in the Shad Thames area, indicating to the public
at initial exhibitions that the use of KSG was inevitable and
not consulting at an early stage, legal opinion suggests TW has
failed to comply with its consultation duties. This potentially
invalidates the whole site selection and consultation process—a
waste of time and money from the public purse.); and
— its
failure to accept Southwark Council's opposition to the use of
KSG before the public consultation, raising questions about the
validity of its consultation process with local authorities.
During the course of its public consultation, Thames
Water has:
— admitted
that alternative sites should have been put forward, rather than
just KSG;
— admitted
that had it checked again on the availability of alternative brownfield
sites before the consultation that King's Stairs Gardens might
not have been chosen as its preferred site; and
— admitted
that a nearby brownfield site would provide them with as good
an engineering solution, if not better.
By providing evidence on a particular site, the Save
King's Stairs Gardens Action Group would like to demonstrate that:
— it
is clear that the threat to London's parkland has come about as
a result of inadequate research, assessment and consultation;
— that
in contrast the WW NPS needs to be thorough and detailed and provide
adequate provision for the protection of open space;
— that
while the WW NPS recognises the importance of major waste water
projects, this should not be at the price of judging the loss
of green space to be acceptable; and
— that
the whole consultation and assessment process for worksites for
the Thames Tunnel should be properly scrutinised—not just
the WW NPS.
TW's own documents on the proposed use of KSG state
that it recognises the site is unacceptable because of the impact
on the area (see attached Environment and Community Impact Response
document ("ECIR"). But greenfield sites can be obtained
at no cost while brownfield sites can be expensive, and sometimes
complicated, to obtain. TW's own reports indicate that it would
prefer to avoid the acquisition costs and risks associated with
third party property transactions.
It is of great concern that a privately owned company
can determine to use public parkland, which includes a children's
playground and is of great importance to the local community and
the environment, on this basis. There needs to be a process where
either the government or a third party can scrutinise proposals
before specific plans for projects of this nature are all but
finalised—in the case of KSG, with a short list of one—before
the public consultation process even begins. TW has been provided
with clear evidence that there are more acceptable sites, but
it has made no move to remove KSG from the list of preferred sites.
GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE
It is important that the WW NPS covers the entire
project, including the location of sites and the legacy structures.
It needs to set out the criteria for the selection of sites, including
provisions for the avoidance of green space and acceptable methodologies
and weighting requirements. We feel it is essential that the NPS
makes a full assessment of the decision-making that led to the
choice of specific locations. Nothing less would satisfy local
communities, nor allow the potential impact of such choices to
be assessed. Nothing less will lead to the removal of unacceptable
sites including green space from the project shortlist.
Appraisal of Sustainability of the Waste Water NPS
("AOS")
We note some of the questions raised in the AOS:
"Will the NPS ensure the protection of green
infrastructure networks, open space and sports and recreation
land?"
"Will the route and the construction of the
tunnel prioritise the use of previously developed land"?
"Will the NPS affect the health or well-being
of the population?"
"Will the NPS result in the deterioration
of existing areas of poor air quality?"
"Will the NPS seek to protect and enhance
the character of landscapes and townscapes generally"
"Will the NPS adversely affect the more disadvantaged
sections of society?"
"Will the NPS result in changes to community
services or facilities?"
"Will the NPS protect, conserve and enhance
where appropriate designated features of archaeological or cultural
heritage importance?"
"Will the NPS encourage development that
will result in increased noise levels at sensitive receptors (eg
housing, schools and hospitals)?"
"Will the TT project affect the tranquillity
of London's open spaces, green networks and public realm?"
"Will the TT result in nuisance to local
communities from odour or dust?"
"Will the TT result in no net loss of wildlife
sites in London in accordance with the Mayor's biodiversity strategy?"
"Will the TT adversely affect the more disadvantaged
sections of society?"
"Will the TT result in changes to community
services or facilities?"
TW's flawed selection of KSG as one of the major
worksites for the TT project fails to address satisfactorily any
of these questions.
The WW NPS needs to contain provisions to ensure
that community, environment and heritage values are adequately
protected. The AOS contains a number of uncertainties surrounding
site location and a full appraisal of the potential impacts could
not be made because of this. We call for an edition of the AOS
to be prepared on the basis of TW's current preferred site list
to ensure that there is a full appraisal of the impact on green
space in the policy documents. It is essential, however, that
the community, local authorities and other individuals and bodies
are given the opportunity to put forward the information that
was missed from TW's assessment of these sites.
OPEN SPACES
We welcome the inclusion in the WW NPS that "The
IPC should not grant consent for development on existing open
space, sports and recreational buildings and land". We are
concerned, however, by the proviso that "unless an assessment
has been undertaken either by the local authority or independently,
which has clearly shown the open space or the buildings and land
to be surplus to requirements or the IPC determines that the benefits
of the project (including need) outweigh the potential loss of
such facilities."
It is unclear which body will be given the independent
authority to conclude that the open space is surplus to requirements.
Further, the statement that the IPC could determine that "the
benefits of the project outweigh the potential loss of such facilities"
simply means that it will be given the power to determine that
green spaces can be destroyed for the greater good of the project.
How will it be in the position to weigh up the detailed local
concerns outlined in this document, especially if the applicant
has failed to carry out a thorough enough analysis of its choices?
This approach does not sufficiently provide for an
independent assessment of Thames Water's proposals, nor its methodology,
nor will it ensure that a full and proper analysis is carried
out on alternative brownfield sites that may preserve the green
spaces under threat.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
TO THE
THAMES TUNNEL
We would recommend that previous solutions provided
by independent engineering companies are fully considered and
that other engineering companies are invited to give independent
reports on all of the solutions to the sewage overflows.
GENERIC IMPACTS
The ECIR outlines the severe impact if the Thames
Tunnel works are undertaken at King's Stairs Gardens. Rather than
listing all of this information in this report, reference is made
to the ECIR. Again, we feel it is appropriate for local authorities
and communities to have the opportunity to provide evidence on
the impact of the TT on individual sites, in order to provide
invaluable local knowledge and to ensure that the applicant has
not missed key information.
The WW NPS includes a number of impacts, including
odour, biodiversity conservation, landscape impact, noise and
vibration and it is noted that the list is not comprehensive.
It is extremely important that it is recognised that
some areas that have been earmarked to become sites for the TT
works are public parkland, and include children's playgrounds
and key cycle and walking paths. These are quiet areas, very close
to people's homes. They are of environmental and social importance
and are highly valued by local residents and visitors. They are
areas that help to showcase the capital and improve its environment.
In the case of KSG, there are human rights issues
related to the closeness of the development site to people's homes,
childcare, educational, religious and other public facilities.
TW propose to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week for seven
years. There is no separation between the work site and some houses.
Over a wider area, there is potential for the construction work
to cause sleep deprivation, health disorders and to harm children's
development, removing a play space from an area already short
of such facilities. In addition, the removal of mature trees and
the overall environmental damage caused will reduce natural drainage
and damage an important habitat and nature corridor.
Please find below two examples of impacts that could
not be fully assessed by the decision making body because of missing
or conflicting information by the applicant:
1. Noise—The WW NPS states that factors
that will determine the likely noise impact include the proximity
of the proposed development to noise sensitive premises. In the
case of KSG, however, TW has failed to note the existence of a
nursery and educational facility of borough-wide importance.
2. Odour, dust, vibration and noise—at
KSG, TW cannot meet its own team's recommendations for the separation
distance from houses and for limiting its working hours. Its documents
note that shielding people's homes will be largely ineffectual.
One of the closest homes to the construction site is not recorded
on TW's maps. In the public consultation, TW provided conflicting
information on odour, ie that there would be no odour from the
sewer, that it could not guarantee that there would be no odour,
and that there would be odour during a storm or that there would
be odour but it will be released from a tall sewage vent. The
proposed sewage vent will be five storeys high—the same
height as some surrounding houses.
CONCLUSION
There is a real human and environmental cost if Thames
Water and the government get the site selection wrong.
But because fundamental information is missing from
the applicant's assessment, the decision making body will be prevented
from making an informed decision.
The Waste Water National Policy Statement ("WW
NPS") needs to:
— ensure
that all matters relating to individual sites is covered;
— ensure
that the importance of green spaces is not over-ridden by the
scale of this project and the government's need to comply with
the EU directive to clean up the Thames;
— give
Metropolitan Open Land equivalent protection to Green Belt land;
— establish
the criteria to be applied in deciding whether a location is suitable
and requiring the applicant to choose brownfield sites, not greenfield;
— ensure
appropriate weight is given to the selection of brownfield sites
and the protection of public parkland and play space;
— ensure
that the decision-making body fully assesses the impact of the
proposals;
— ensure
that there is a full and thorough process adopted by the applicant
for the selection of individual worksites, that it provides clear
evidence for its decisions and that its assessment of sites and
their alternatives has been independently checked and verified;
— ensure
that key information is not missed from such assessments, and
that all information on selected sites and alternatives is fully
up to date so that sites cannot be put forward as the only choice,
when other solutions exist;
— ensure
that if the use of parkland and play space is proposed the applicant
must clearly demonstrate that it has exhausted all alternatives;
— ensure
that the applicant's site selection methodology is sound and independently
verified, and that it differentiates between brownfield and greenfield
sites with an appropriate weighting system;
— ensure
that local authorities are given a proper say in the selection
of individual worksites and above-ground structures;
— ensure
that local communities are consulted on individual worksites and
above-ground structures to provide important local knowledge in
the assessment of the site and alternatives;
— ensure
that the applicant will undertake a re-assessment if new information
comes to light that negates the use of one site, or increases
the attractiveness of an alternative;
— ensure
that the WW NPS stresses the need to use brownfield sites wherever
possible, rather than placing so much emphasis on the mitigation
of adverse impacts, as it does at the moment.
DEFRA now needs to ensure that TW reviews its choice
of sites and consults on a revised assessment, in view of its
failure to select preferred sites on the basis of the principles
set out in the draft WW NPS and for the inadequate consultation
process.
January 2011
| 
