Boris tells Thames Water to consider Butler’s Wharf foreshore for ‘super sewer’ works

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2
Tuesday 25 January 2011 6.23pm
Interesting that Thames Water rejected using this site because "There are a number of restaurants, a museum and a large number of residential flats next to the site, all of which could face disruption from any construction works in this location."

But they don't seem to be concerned about the disruption to the Alfred Salter children's playground at Druid Street, nor to the playground, church, education centre and riverside park at King's Stairs Gardens, both of which are their 'preferred' sites for lengthy and hugely disruptive works.

Nor to the large number of residential flats surrounding those two sites. Oh but of course, they're mostly social housing. Much better to disrupt people living there than in the luxury flats at Butler's Wharf!
Wednesday 26 January 2011 11.22am
Agree
Wednesday 26 January 2011 11.42am
Me too. Reminds me of an interesting thing a few years back. The people in Shad Thames et al were complaining that refuse lorries were waking them up by collecting their rubbish at 7:00 a.m. Solution: re-jig the routes so that 'social housing' was collected from first! Another time, there was mass annoyance about O2 signal in Shad Thames area; however, when O2 sought to remedy the problem by installing a mast on one of the buildings in Shad Thames, there was uproar, with at least one person suggesting that the mast ought to be placed on a 'council block'. Talk about NIMBY!

Returning to the subject matter, it would have far less of an impact on the community if the foreshore was used; I mean, how many kids/adults actually use it? Contrast that with the AS playground which is used by many local children who, without the playground, would not have anywhere to play. Still, the social divide between those living in Shad Thames and those close to the AS playground has never been greater.
Thursday 27 January 2011 7.50am
Why do you have to make this sound like some sort of 'class war' scenario.

I expect it's more a case of simple economics and the complexity of the engineering task.

"The site's use would impact on the existing quay structure (the boardwalk) as this has been built above where the existing CSO discharges into the river."

It's pretty obvious that it would be much easier to dig up and restore a playground than it would be to tear up the Shad Thames Boardwalk.
Thursday 27 January 2011 8.19am
Not a class war at all. Simple facts is all. In what way would digging up the playground be 'easier'? Perhaps I'm missing the point, but is it not the case that any selected site needs to be in close proximity to the Thames? That being the case, the foreshore seems ideal!

Sticking point - NIMBY brigade doesn't want it on its patch, obscuring their expensive view. Not a class war, but why should said brigade's view prevail over the playground and the many flats surrounding it?
Thursday 27 January 2011 8.46pm
Gavin Smith wrote:
Not a class war at all. Simple facts is all. In what way would digging up the playground be 'easier'? Perhaps I'm missing the point, but is it not the case that any selected site needs to be in close proximity to the Thames? That being the case, the foreshore seems ideal!
Sticking point - NIMBY brigade doesn't want it on its patch, obscuring their expensive view. Not a class war, but why should said brigade's view prevail over the playground and the many flats surrounding it?

Well apart from anything else a bit of ground covered in block paving is obviously going to be easier to deal with than the Shad Thames boardwalk which is contained by a concrete wall that acts as a flood defence... you don't exactly have to be a structural engineer...

You seem to have something of a chip on your shoulder about the whole thing.
Thursday 27 January 2011 9.15pm
Yup - Gavin's excellent argument is let down by his pointless class-based ranting. Shame really - but there you go!
Friday 28 January 2011 8.20am
Disagree Johnnie and BSB - my kids use the playground (and I imagine residents of ST do too) and such places are scarce enough as it is. The issue, as it seems to me, is that it is not deemed 'appropriate' by Thames Water to work on the foreshore due to not necessarily problems with groundwork but rather because of the presence of 'residential flats' and restaurants. On these criteria then, nor is the playground site appropriate. My earlier posts were not intended to alienate our friends over in Shad Thames; it was merely illustrating the additional (and unfair) weight which I believe is lent to their argument when the same criteria aren't applied fairly and consistently.
Friday 28 January 2011 8.28am
An afterthought but the solution to this is for TW to listen to all and find a site (solution) acceptable to the whole community. Of course, in reality, neither proposed site is acceptable; there must be somewhere more appropriate?
Sunday 30 January 2011 12.42pm
Yes - clearly this is going to cause disruption where ever it is built. I imagine the proposed choice of the AS Park is being driven primarily by cost. According to the plans the existing sewer runs immediately underneath the park and hence it becomes the 'cheaper option' as its the only bit of open space immediately above the existing infrastructure. The Shad Thames option will involve building on the Thames foreshore (its not just the boardwalk that would be impacted) and so the engineeriing complexities required to deal with the tidal rise and fall and lack of road access would no doubt add significantly to the capital cost. As per usual the social costs don't always get factored into the equation when engineers are drawing up their plans.

Whilst its clear that the project needs to be built, I fully sympathise with anyone that is impacted by the construction.
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: