Small mercies

Just about the only thing the latest plans for the Riverside Quarter have going for them are that they aren't this idea they came up with - and fortunately withdrew - in 2008.

"Thank heavens for small mercies" is an understandable feeling looking at this alien monstrosity - but just because the new plans aren't this awful doesn't mean they deserve approval.

Tideway Tunnel feature in the Standard

There was a big report in last week's Evening Standard about the Thames Tideway Tunnel: Thames Water's plans to build a super-sewer under the Thames from the Hammersmith area to Beckton in the east end to end the dumping of raw sewage into the river whenever we experience heavy rain.

This is a project that's going to affect Putney - adversely while it's being built, but beneficially once our Thames isn't polluted by millions of gallons of raw sewage.

You can read the Evening Standard story here, and I've written more about issues relating to the Thames here.

Before and after

Sometimes it's quite hard to keep together all the disperse overdevelopment threats there are to our area. But these two "before and after" pictures of the Riverside Quarter show, I hope, why this is such a critically important issue.

They're from the developers' architects themselves, submitted as part of the planning application and still available on the council website.

Here's what the Riverside Quarter looks like today:



And here's how it will look as a result of a series of planning mistakes the Conservatives have made for this area:



To me, the first looks like Putney. The second one looks like a scene out of Miami Vice - garish modern buildings, out of all scale to the human environment, piled up one on top of another. And just to put the sheer scale of this in perspective: the 21 storey tower I've been opposing is barely visible to the left at the back - still sticking out above other tall buildings closer to the river clumped around it.

This isn't how the rest of Putney has to end up. Fortunately we have Wandsworth Park to stop the type of development that has turned the Thames into a canyon from Wandsworth right up to Vauxhall encroaching any further our way. But then remember that the developers aren't even looking at this as an opportunity - they want to run their towers up Upper Richmond Road and down Buckhold Road, gridlocking central Wandsworth and packing even more people into an area where the infrastructure is already bulging at the seems.

Does this reassure you on the flood threat?

At last month's council meeting a Conservative councillor asked about the risk of flooding to homes in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, principally from the Wandle and Beverley Brook (rather than the Thames).

I've reproduced the answer below and you can draw your own conclusions, but the thing that strikes me is the complacency of it. It's all about what the Conservative council might do after a flood rather than what can be done to prevent or mitigate flooding in the first place. Hundreds of homes in the constituency are at risk. If you live in one of them, this reply is likely to raise far more questions than it answers.

Here's the council's reply in full (and you can check about your property on the Environment Agency's flooding pages here):

"The principal cause for concern so far as major flooding in the Borough is concerned lies with the River Wandle. Here the risk of flooding is higher and in some areas is assessed by the Environment Agency as significant (more than 1:75 in any one year. There is also a risk of flooding in the Beverley Brook catchment area.

"The River Wandle is a fast flowing river which, when subjected to heavy rain, can rise very quickly. If it were to flood in a significant way a large number of properties both residential and commercial could potentially be affected. It would also have the effect of cutting the Borough in two.

"In terms of the Borough's readiness to deal with such a flood there is a specific section in the Council's Emergency Plan dealing with flooding. In a large scale flooding emergency the response would be co-ordinated within pan-London arrangements. The main role of the Council would initially be to provide shelter for any residents displaced from their homes. In this respect the emergency plan identified a number of buildings able to be used as rest centres - the plan also notes those rest centres located above the flood plain and therefore suitable for use during a flooding incident.

"As flood water recedes the Council would have a major role to play in the recovery phase of any incident. This would include leading on clearing debris, restoring any damaged infrastructure such as keeping thoroughfares open, etc.

"Flooding is one of the risks in the Community Risk Register for South West London and regularly discussed at the Wandsworth Emergency Planning Forum attended by the three blue light emergency services, the health sector and other key responders.

"In summary, the Council is well aware of the risks from flooding and has a well developed emergency plan which has been tested via various emergency planning exercises.?

Putney Bridge breakup: my action

UPDATE: 9.56pm

We've had a very prompt reply from the council:

Once again, thank you for passing these defects to me.

I had been assured that all carriageway defects had been repaired previously, a more thorough inspection and repair process will be carried out next week and I shall endeavour to have the worse ones temporarily filled tomorrow.

The continuing problems with the bridge are of great concern. An engineer inspected the bridge for water egress at carriageway level last week during dry weather. None was witnessed, although water was escaping underneath. The report to me was quite positive in that respect, that the carriageway surface may be less prone to deterioration in future.

Whilst I am very keen to resolve this matter fully, I am loathe to arrange for large scale carriageway resurfacing works if it is to suffer in the same way that it is now.

I shall consider our options and keep you informed.

Putney Bridge breakup latest

In politics, timing is everything. Just two days after I received a reply from the council telling me that "works have been successful in reducing water egress, and therefore the problem of potholes should reduce", anyone who has been across Putney Bridge today will see how wide of the mark those claims are:







Two of the potholes above are, again, recently repaired: and yet again I question how cost-effective repeatedly calling out contractors to tackle (not very successfully) one-off potholes when it's clear the bridge needs increasingly urgent, serious repair.

And just look at this photo too - a steel plate put down three or four months ago, again as a stopgap instead of a proper, satisfactory repair - already coming loose:



And these photos, also taken earlier today, show an array of fissures about to open up, including one crack that now runs right across the apex of the bridge:







This Conservative neglect of Putney Bridge can't go on. The bridge is in an appalling state - it's really dangerous for cyclists, it doesn't do car suspensions any good, it looks like no-one cares a jot about Putney and it is emblematic of the complete lack of local leadership we have from the Tories here.

They've been in power for over thirty years: anyone would become complacent after that long - but it's not good for Putney.

I've reported - again - these problems with Putney Bridge. Here's the reply I received two days ago from the council:


Thank you for the email to Mr Myers informing him of the carriageway defects on Putney Bridge which has been passed to me to reply to. The defects you mentioned were repaired on the 6th November.

Works have been carried out to the structure of the bridge to improve 'weep hole' drainage from within internal galleries. The aim is to ensure that water cannot build up and then exit via the road surface causing the carriageway surface to break up. Whilst early indications are that these works have been successful in reducing water egress, and therefore the problem of potholes should reduce, it is still too early to be sure that this is an effective solution.

Concerns remain about the water mains being defective, although Thames Water are adamant that they have cured the leaks. There still is evidence of water within the bridge structure, but it is not possible to identify precisely where it is coming from.

At the current time we are in a period of monitoring. The success of the recent works is being evaluated and further checks on water ingress will be carried out. The carriageway surface is being regularly checked as there is some evidence of de-lamination taking place between the layers of road surface and underlying base courses. It is likely that further large scale works to the carriageway surface will be required in future although it is hoped that the existing surface will last over the winter period. Minor carriageway defects will continue to be repaired quickly.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you require any further information.

Yours sincerely

Assistant Head of Operational Services

My objection to Osiers Gate planning application

Osiers Gate is the third stage of the Riverside Quarter development, currently being considered by Wandsworth Council planners.

A few days ago I reluctantly submitted an objection to this application.

I say reluctantly because I recognise that the Enterprise Way part of the development on which Osiers Gate will be built needs to be regenerated and because several aspects of the plan are positive.

But there is one aspect that is completely unacceptable, and that is the 21-storey tower block the developers are proposing to the north of this small site. Leave aside for one minute the questionable design of this block and just consider that there is no building remotely comparable to a 21 storey high rise block within the Riverside Quarter. There is no high rise building of 21 storeys anywhere in Putney - the tallest, Putney Wharf Tower, is 18 storeys, and tiered to reduce its impact.

This 21-storey block will be visible from much of Putney and Wandsworth but at the same time it will offer its residents very little in panoramic views of our fantastic riverside; in part because two ranks of substantial buildings will stand between it and the Thames (the already-built Eastfields Avenue blocks, and another row yet to be built in the second stage), but also because the Waste Processing plant the other side of the Wandle obscures views as the Thames curves round into Battersea.

The developers in their supporting documentation, which you can view here, showed six plans they worked up before deciding which to support. Other models provide for lower density buildings by adding a new building next to the railway track. Although the developers are right to be sensitive about the quality of life afforded those who might live alongside the railway, this is what architects exist for: to design buildings that shield residents from such challenges - there are plenty of examples of their success, including the SW15H site alongside East Putney's district line railway. By adding a building here, the developers can lower the height of what is currently their 21 storey tower, and add more innovative, sensitive and in-keeping design.

Also in my submission to the planners I raise concerns about the traffic impact of the Riverside Quarter on the Wandsworth road network and question whether a case does not now exist for a new station here given the site's equidistance between Putney and Wandsworth Town.

And while welcoming the provision of affordable housing to rent in these plans we need even more to start addressing Putney's housing crisis. It's also really important that affordable housing is integrated with shared ownership and full-market cost housing; and that parking is available to all, not just those who can pay £10,000 a year for a space.

You can read my submission here.

Beverley Brook

I write a lot about the river Wandle - it's important to me because I grew up alongside it in Wandsworth. The Wandle forms much of the eastern boundary of the Putney constituency;but a lot of the western boundary of it is formed by another waterway, Beverley Brook.

You can view Beverley Brook at several points around the constituency: it exits into the Thames just past Leader's Gardens; winding between Barn Elms and the Ranelagh Estate; through Barnes and then up alongside Roehampton - past the Lennox estate; through Richmond Park, and just past the Putney Vale estate.

In today's Wandsworth Guardian, Tony Drakeford, the paper's nature correspondent, writes about the progress the brook has made in recent years. Here's the article:

June's Thames sewage spills

I've had a reply from Thames Water about the sewage spillage in Chiswick that happened in June and which I wrote about here.

Although the tideway tunnel won't help alleviate the situation that caused the Chiswick spill (because Chiswick is beyond the area the tunnel will cover, as you will see Thames Water are taking action to increase capacity within the sewer network from Chiswick westwards.

The letter's reproduced below or you can download a pdf here.

Last week's sewage discharges into the Thames

You may have read about how last week's heavy rainfall in London contributed to another of the damaging and deeply unpleasant discharges of raw sewage into the Thames near Kew, because our Victorian sewer system can't cope with such rapid surges of storm water.

I've written to the head of Thames Tideway Tunnels, Phil Stride, who I met when he kindly came to brief me earlier this year on the project. My letter to him is below.

Thames Tideway Tunnel briefing

Last night I organised a briefing for the Putney Society and myself from the Head of Thames Water's Tideway Tunnel project. You can read about the project in two of my posts from last year: here and here.

I learnt a huge amount about the project and was grateful for the briefing because there will be far bigger consequences for our area than I originally anticipated.

The main tunnel, which will run from West London through to Beckton in the east end, will take eight years to build - completed in 2020 - and will require six massive boreholes to get the drilling equipment down and the tunnel debris up. Those six holes will require an area the equivalent of three football pitches to be acquired along the route, one of which will need to be open space somewhere in the vicinity of Putney/Barnes.

In addition there are two local overflow discharge outlets - which discharge a mix of rainwater and untreated sewage - direct into the Thames at Putney. One of these is by the mouth of Beverley Brook; the other by Putney Bridge. These two areas will need smaller holes drilled as they are connected to the Tideway tunnel.

This is vitally important work needed to stop the discharge of raw sewage into the Thames whenever it rains heavily. This is an especially big issue for us due to Putney's association with rowing and other riparian activities.



As a result of tonight's meeting, the Thames Water team agreed to address a full meeting of the Putney Society on Thursday 25 June - put the date in your diary if you want to come along and learn more.

More on the Thames Tideway Tunnel

I wrote a few days ago about the plans by Thames Water to build a super-sewer along the route of the river to, hopefully, prevent untreated sewage flooding into the Thames whenever it rains heavily.

I said that I was awaiting a more detailed briefing from Thames Water, and this has now arrived. Anyone interested in knowing more can download a copy of my briefing letter here.

Thames Tideway Tunnel

The problem of untreated sewage flooding straight into the Thames whenever there is heavy rainfall in the capital is one that affects Putney as well as the wider environment.

Thames Water are now proposing to build a new "super-sewer" - the London Tideway Tunnel - which will follow the course of the river from West London (where much of the sewage that affects Putney is jettisoned from) to the Isle of Dogs and then on to Beckton treatment works.

This is a massive engineering task and a controversial one - a meeting was held on Monday in Hammersmith where experts and consumer groups questioned the effectiveness of the project.

I start from the basis that something needs to be done to reduce the amount of raw sewage contaminating the Thames - a problem that stems back to the way our Victorian sewer network was built in the 19th century but which, through population growth and a reduction in the amount of green space available in London to absorb rainwater, has overflowed more and more frequently. The problem is now so bad that Thames Water has regularly been fined for the leaks, not least last year during that Summer's heavy rains.

But I do want any work to be effective - so I've asked Thames Water to brief me more fully on the plans. When they do, I'll report back, but in the meantime you can find out more about the London Tideway Tunnel here.

Putney at dusk

Saving local gardens

An issue I predict will become massive in the coming years is the loss of green space in urban environments like Putney's. In the past 20 years, two thirds of front gardens in London have been paved-over. Just think about that stark statistic for a moment.

Throughout the constituency, concern has been growing about the loss of front and rear gardens due to three factors:

• Turning front gardens into hard standings to park cars on
• Excavating basements, which also involves the loss of a large chunk of front and/or rear gardens
• The more recent phenomenon of residents with large gardens selling off chunks to build new homes on

Pressure from all three of these factors is certain to grow as the credit crunch reduces the likelihood of people to be able to move home, and financial pressures encourage us all to look at new ways of utilising our assets to make more money.

This isn't exactly a new issue: residents on the Dover House Estate in particular have been concerned about the loss of front gardens for several years now and basement excavations have been increasingly common throughout the past decade.

You may have seen London Mayor Boris Johnson recently discover the wonder of roof-top gardens, as if they're something he's invented. They're important; and they'll become more so, but they're no compensation for that two-thirds loss of front garden green space.

But what does this really matter? There's actually a really serious consequence to this loss of garden space - and not just some aesthetic impact that cutting down a few trees and bushes and concreting over some lawns will have.

Over the past three or four years, parts of the constituency - including Roehampton, the parts of Southfields alongside the Wandle and parts of central Putney - have all been affected by flash flooding caused by sudden very heavy downpours that the drain system locally can't cope with. Gardens help drain this water away. Without them, the impact of flash flooding worsens - and bear in mind that ours is an area liable to flooding from the Thames, Wandle and even Beverley Brook. And because ours is a hilly area, those who live at the foot of hills have to absorb the cascading water pouring down upon them as well as their own share of heavy rainfall.

People have a right to expand their living space within reason. But I am against allowing front gardens to be turned into car parks and back or side gardens to be sold off to cram another unit of housing into our already densely populated community, however much a nice little earner that may be for the landowner.

The risk of flooding

Yesterday the Environment Agency held an exhibition and consultation at St Mary's Church about its plans to protect riparian communities like Putney from the growing threat of flooding.

Although this is a chance for us to have a say over how the powers that be protect the Thames area from flood risk through to 2100, the exhibition was as much a chance to reassure residents that Putney and London are not at any imminent risk of severe tidal flooding.

Protecting against severe flooding also needs to be offset against, for example, the visual impact of flood barriers. Many would argue that a great concrete wall along the Putney embankment similar to the one in Barnes would not be worth the loss of our riverside vistas or accessibility to the foreshore for pedestrians and rowers alike.

The Environment Agency is also looking at protecting communities that live alongside the Thames's tributaries - in our neck of the woods that means those in Southfields and Wandsworth town living near the Wandle, and the Roehampton and Putney Common areas alongside Beverley Brook.

Given that both these areas experienced some flooding during last Summer's downpours, the Agency is looking at ways of diverting "fresh water" floodwater (as opposed to tidal floodwater) onto flood plain land and away from homes; meaning in the case of The Wandle onto King George's Park, and in respect of Beverley Brook Richmond Park and Barnes Common.

But the underlying message to come out of the consultation was that London is secure from flooding; the Thames Barrier - while it needs some strengthening - is still fit for purpose for decades to come; that we do not yet need a new barrier further towards the estuary and that communities like Putney, if we do experience flooding, will do so due to freak downpours of rain rather than tidal surges.

You can find out a whole lot more about the flood risk, what the Environment Agency is proposing to do to protect us, and have your own say, by visiting: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/te2100

Thames Water must put their house in order

I am one of those who thinks that Thames Water got off lightly earlier today with their £12 million OFWAT fine.

A newly published report by the Health Protection Agency has just found that on less than 1% of days when water from the river Thames was tested levels of hazardous bio-organisms were within acceptable World Health Organisation (WHO) levels.

One of the main reasons for this is that whenever it rains very heavily, Thames Water can't cope with the sewage and so jettison it straight into the Thames, upstream of Putney. This is disgusting, unhealthy and damaging to wildlife - not to mention rowers. It has to stop.

Thames Water have a track record. They have the worst record on broken pipes and water leaks of any water company in the UK. Last year they cut pressure through their mains which required extra pumps to be installed (at residents' expense) in blocks in Roehampton and West Hill. Their poor customer service is the reason for the record OFWAT fine.

It just isn't good enough for Thames Water to whine that instead of being fined this money could have been invested in improved service. Yes, it could: but this is the same company that last year claimed they couldn't improve upon pipe repairs because they were doing the absolute best possible. Well, a filthy river isn't the best possible. Cutting supplies isn't the best possible. Wasting water through record leaks whilst lecturing the rest of us on conserving water isn't the best possible. And record profits coupled with huge water rate increases isn't the best possible. Thames Water: must do better.

You can read the Health Protection Agency report here.