The Draft National Policy Statement on Waste Water

Written evidence submitted by the Save King’s Stairs Gardens Action Group (WWnps 09)

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.)

· 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;

· 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;

· 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 (e.g. 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 7 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