If all the rumours are true, as all those we assume to be in the know would appear to accept they are, the Conservatives are about to stab their Liberal Democrat partners in the back and betray their promise, enshrined within the terms of the Coalition Agreement, to support reform of the House of Lords.
Forget all the dishonest spin and weasel words about the Agreement making no reference to specific detail that is contained in the proposals that are now being made. If Conservative backbench unease was about detail it would have been possible for the two parties of government to have amended the proposals between them in such a way as to address any legitimate concerns. The bottom line is that a substantial body of opinion within the parliamentary Conservative Party is wedded to the whole notion of inequality and privilege in politics as are, to their eternal disgrace, most of the so-called "progressives" of the Labour Party. Not for nothing did Labour's Peter Hain describe the current Lib Dem-inspired attempt to reform the second chamber as a once in a lifetime opportunity.
The argument that now is the "wrong time" due to there being "other priorities" is also a cop out. There will always be economic issues to address. There will never be a time when there will not be one national or international concern or another which can be given priority over constitutional reform if we look hard enough for an excuse to place the issue onto the back burner for another hundred years. The bottom line is that we cannot claim as a society to be committed to fairness and equality of opportunity for as long as our institutions themselves are based upon patronage and favour.
The stark fact of the matter is that the Conservatives, having wrested Lib Dem support for their unpopular and ideologically driven austerity programme, given in good faith, are now preparing to renege on their promise to their partners to honour their side of the bargain. It is a thing that the big parties do. As somebody who was Leader of a minority group at the London Borough of Hounslow in coalition with the Conservatives from 2006 to 2010 the pattern of behaviour is instantly familiar to me.
I have only bad news for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. The situation will get worse. As the next general election begins to approach their partners will figure that it will become increasingly difficult for them to cut and run. Throw a few spanners into the works, employ a few delaying tactics to stretch things out for a year or two, and suddenly it will have become nigh on impossible for the Lib Dems to abandon the coalition without being accused of extreme cynicism in the run-up to an election.
The fear of heavy electoral losses, itself a consequence of Lib Dem participation in the coalition, will also play heavily on the minds of the party's elected members when it comes to contemplating taking the very drastic step of forcing an early election by walking away from a one-sided coalition. Self-interest will almost inevitably win the day and so the coalition will limp on grumpily until 2015 at which time the Lib Dems will lose most of their seats, dispense with their leader and set about the long, painstaking but at some point probably successful task of placing some distance between themselves and this whole regrettable episode and eventually regaining lost ground.
What seems clear to me is that the big parties attract and encourage a mentality in which intrigue, behind-the-scenes plotting and betrayal are considered a necessary and inevitable feature of political discourse and one which some of those involved actually find quite exciting. Just behold for a moment the smug, fatuous grin on the face of the career politician on Question Time or Newsnight as he or she smarmily avoids answering a question and you will clearly see for yourself what I mean - these people actually believe that by the practice of spin and deceit they are in some way being clever rather than just deceitful.
In the course of its betrayal the senior partner will have powerful allies. In Hounslow it was senior officers of the Council, not necessarily supportive of the Conservatives but wedded to the old establishment practices to which they had become accustomed under Labour and fearful of the radical agenda promoted by the Community Group on the Council which I led. In the case of the government it will be the largely Conservative press, and we can be sure that between now and 2015 the Daily Mail and other such esteemed organs of the establishment will be drip-feeding us juicy titbits of information, and non-information, about the junior coalition partner for our edification.
Meanwhile another plank of the Coalition Agreement concerns proposed electoral boundary changes, due to be introduced before the next election, which will favour the Conservatives at the expense of the Lib Dems and the Labour Party. The rationale of the changes is that they will bring more integrity to the process of government by rectifying inequalities that have developed within the present alignment of constituency seats.
Through their betrayal over Lords reform the Conservatives will have demonstrated that they have no interest in bringing more integrity to government, nor in rectifying inequality. As such the Liberal Democrats will no longer have any moral obligation to support the proposed changes.
Furthermore, the Conservatives will already have set the precedent that coalition promises need not be honoured.
It is almost certainly too late for the Lib Dems to reverse the hemorrhaging of their own support that their participation in the coalition government has brought about. Nevertheless it is essential that that loss of support is not exacerbated by the complete loss of credibility that will ensue should they roll over and simply accept the bad faith shown to them by their untrustworthy partners.
In my view it is of critical importance that the Lib Dems punish the impending betrayal by withdrawing their support for boundary changes and making it crystal clear why they have done so. Their partners will whine like stuck pigs and no doubt some of them will genuinely be too stupid to understand why it has happened, in the same way as some of the Conservatives on Hounslow Council were shocked when we failed to support their 2010 budget following the Mogden debacle, when our partners refused to back us in our quarrel with chief officers over the nuisance caused to residents by a local sewage plant "managed" by Thames Water (which has donated money to the Conservative Party).
Not only will such a response be crucial if the Liberal Democrats are to maintain any dignity and self-respect at all, but I also truly believe that punishing underhandedness and betrayal will send precisely the right message to the spinners and backstabbers who seem to dominate modern party politics that their way doesn't actually pay.
In other words it will, in the long run, be beneficial not only to the Lib Dems but indeed to all those politicians, including those within the Conservative and Labour parties, of which I have no doubt there are many, who do actually appreciate the importance of good faith and integrity in our politics.
Showing posts with label Thames Water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thames Water. Show all posts
Monday, 6 August 2012
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
Public Meeting to Discuss River Crane Pollution - Twickenham Library, July 11th
Representatives from Thames Water, which is being prosecuted by the Environment Agency for the sewage release, will be present at the meeting to answer questions. Friends of the River Crane Environment (FORCE), who have organised the meeting, are hoping for big public support. Please come along if you are able.
I Won't Say I Told You So
That's how the song goes anyway.
It could, of course, have been written by the ICG for those mugs who voted in support of an application by Thames Water to expand its stinky Mogden operation back in 2009 on the grounds that (a) it would "reduce smell" and that (b) the London Borough of Hounslow would be able to exercise "more control" over the selfish, relentlessly profit-driven activities of the water utlity through the watered-down and thoroughly useless Section 106 agreement that Thames condescended to sign as part of the approval process.
The ICG told the sorry shower that comprised the Sustainable Development Committee that the grounds were flawed on two counts. Namely (a) it wouldn't reduce the smell but would increase it, and (b) the London Borough of Hounslow has never had any intention of exercising any kind of control or restraint whatsoever over Thames Water, which imposes its odours on the surrounding community with absolute impunity.
Guess what happened?
The following is an excerpt from a letter written by the resident-led Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) to Isleworth councillor Ed Mayne on June 10th:
"Residents are thus astounded to learn that, without any consultation with MRAG or community groups, the Council elected of its own volition, to remove the out of hours call centre for victims to ring so that Environment Officers can take 24/7 H2S readings and thus build a case to enforce Abatement Notices. Residents were led to believe that this call centre and the associated costs for Council Officers to investigate complaints is funded 100% by Thames Water as a pre-condition of the S106 agreement and it was agreed that this would remain in place until 2013 when the upgrade of Mogden is completed. Why then, and on whose authority was this vital function removed just before the summer months when odour escaping the Mogden premises is at its most severe?
"You will also be aware that residents requested, and were granted GBP 150,000, within the S106 agreement to enhance and beautify the environment around Mogden in residential areas most affected by Mogden's mismanagement and negligence over the last 14 years. We have repeatedly requested information on when consultation with residents will commence in order to define how the £150K will be spent, but we have received no response."
So there you have it, so supportive is the Head of Environment at LBH of the residents who pay his not unsubstantial salary that he has withdrawn an important facility that was provided as a condition of acceptance for the expansion project at no cost at all to the borough!
And what have the elected members, who are supposed to be running the council, done about it?
Well, Councillor Mayne has offered to facilitate a meeting between residents and the new Lead Member for Environment, Councillor Colin Ellar, and this offer is in the process of being responded to.
We can only hope that Councillor Ellar and his administration will take the necessary measures that we would have taken had our coalition partners backed us post-2009 to sort out the utter disgrace that is Hounslow's Environment department for once and for all.
It could, of course, have been written by the ICG for those mugs who voted in support of an application by Thames Water to expand its stinky Mogden operation back in 2009 on the grounds that (a) it would "reduce smell" and that (b) the London Borough of Hounslow would be able to exercise "more control" over the selfish, relentlessly profit-driven activities of the water utlity through the watered-down and thoroughly useless Section 106 agreement that Thames condescended to sign as part of the approval process.
The ICG told the sorry shower that comprised the Sustainable Development Committee that the grounds were flawed on two counts. Namely (a) it wouldn't reduce the smell but would increase it, and (b) the London Borough of Hounslow has never had any intention of exercising any kind of control or restraint whatsoever over Thames Water, which imposes its odours on the surrounding community with absolute impunity.
Guess what happened?
The following is an excerpt from a letter written by the resident-led Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) to Isleworth councillor Ed Mayne on June 10th:
"Residents are thus astounded to learn that, without any consultation with MRAG or community groups, the Council elected of its own volition, to remove the out of hours call centre for victims to ring so that Environment Officers can take 24/7 H2S readings and thus build a case to enforce Abatement Notices. Residents were led to believe that this call centre and the associated costs for Council Officers to investigate complaints is funded 100% by Thames Water as a pre-condition of the S106 agreement and it was agreed that this would remain in place until 2013 when the upgrade of Mogden is completed. Why then, and on whose authority was this vital function removed just before the summer months when odour escaping the Mogden premises is at its most severe?
"You will also be aware that residents requested, and were granted GBP 150,000, within the S106 agreement to enhance and beautify the environment around Mogden in residential areas most affected by Mogden's mismanagement and negligence over the last 14 years. We have repeatedly requested information on when consultation with residents will commence in order to define how the £150K will be spent, but we have received no response."
So there you have it, so supportive is the Head of Environment at LBH of the residents who pay his not unsubstantial salary that he has withdrawn an important facility that was provided as a condition of acceptance for the expansion project at no cost at all to the borough!
And what have the elected members, who are supposed to be running the council, done about it?
Well, Councillor Mayne has offered to facilitate a meeting between residents and the new Lead Member for Environment, Councillor Colin Ellar, and this offer is in the process of being responded to.
We can only hope that Councillor Ellar and his administration will take the necessary measures that we would have taken had our coalition partners backed us post-2009 to sort out the utter disgrace that is Hounslow's Environment department for once and for all.
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
The Big Society or No Such Thing as Society?
I’m still trying to get my head around “The Big Society”, what the Prime Minister David Cameron describes as his “vision and passion”. I am particularly keen to understand how it is to be reconciled with the view that “there is no such thing as society”, articulated by Margaret Thatcher, now Baroness Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister back in the 1980s.
On the surface of it it would seem to be something of an oxymoron. If society doesn’t exist then it cannot be big. Or, conversely, if it is indeed big then the view that it does not exist has to be wrong.
So what exactly is society? What is this thing that is simultaneously big and yet not really there?
Society in its most basic form must be that state in which we live beyond our own selfish existence. It is that common experience that we share whenever we interact, be it socially, in the supermarket, at the bingo hall, down at the local pub, even indeed passing each other in the street and acknowledging the fact that the other person is there.
It may also be, if you prefer, the way in which we support each other by using the skills each of us possess to benefit others, whether we do so for a wage or out of purest altruism. It could be the shopkeeper taking our order, the postman bring our mail, the doctor making us better, the bus driver getting us to where we want to be. We cannot do all these things for ourselves, but by plying our particular trade in the service of others we all manage to muddle along somehow.
The voluntary aspect of being a society is altogether more special. After all it is something from which we derive no personal gain, and which we really don’t have to do. Running a scout group, giving advice, helping out at the local school, organising a residents’ or tenants’ association or an action group – all of these things serve to make life more enjoyable and the environment in which we live more pleasant.
So when Mrs. Thatcher told us there was no such thing as society was she denying that the altruism of what is admittedly an active minority actually existed, that there was behind all of it an ulterior, selfish motive? Or was it just an expression of wishful thinking?
To say there is no such thing as society suggests that people in general are concerned only with Number One, with the furtherance of their own careers and the unrelenting accumulation of personal wealth. It is a call to those who give of their free time to call it a day and to return home to the counting table. It envisions the whole of life as a metaphorical ladder upon which the objective is to climb whilst if necessary treading on the head of the person below.
If this is indeed what Mrs. Thatcher meant then why is it that a quarter of a century on another Conservative Prime Minister sees fit to champion what he calls The Big Society? He after all has never, as far as I am aware, denounced nor even distanced himself from the shocking opinions of his distant predecessor.
In the light of the commonality that exists between the Thatcherites of old and adherents of modern Conservatism it is reasonable to look upon Cameron’s Big Society with a certain degree of scepticism. What is it about the society that the Prime Minister envisages that would find favour amongst those who continue to venerate the undisputed champion of the culture of self?
The answer must logically be found in the fact that the voluntary sector offers something that professionals employed in the public sector per se cannot – work done for free. Why pay a librarian when a retired person looking to get out and meet people or a student in need of work experience and a reference can manage the local library on a day to day basis for nothing?
This cheapskate cynicism is rightly condemned by the Conservatives’ traditional opponents in the Labour Party. Sadly though the criticism focuses usually not upon the exploitative instincts that underpin the Tories’ new-found commitment to a society the very existence of which they were denying not so long ago, but upon the very rationale of volunteering and community self-help.
“Ordinary” people, we are told, are too busy scratching a living to be much bothered about putting anything into the community of which they are a part. All the average (acknowledgements Neil Peart) are concerned about is putting food on the table and clothes on their children’s backs.
Fortunately, so the argument continues, there exists an expert political class (them) whose calling is to manage all our society’s affairs for us. That political class comprises a social elite (whether by education or birthright is unclear) that is specially and uniquely trained to understand all our needs and to deliver them to us in the way that only it knows best.
On the surface of it it would seem to be something of an oxymoron. If society doesn’t exist then it cannot be big. Or, conversely, if it is indeed big then the view that it does not exist has to be wrong.
So what exactly is society? What is this thing that is simultaneously big and yet not really there?
Society in its most basic form must be that state in which we live beyond our own selfish existence. It is that common experience that we share whenever we interact, be it socially, in the supermarket, at the bingo hall, down at the local pub, even indeed passing each other in the street and acknowledging the fact that the other person is there.
It may also be, if you prefer, the way in which we support each other by using the skills each of us possess to benefit others, whether we do so for a wage or out of purest altruism. It could be the shopkeeper taking our order, the postman bring our mail, the doctor making us better, the bus driver getting us to where we want to be. We cannot do all these things for ourselves, but by plying our particular trade in the service of others we all manage to muddle along somehow.
The voluntary aspect of being a society is altogether more special. After all it is something from which we derive no personal gain, and which we really don’t have to do. Running a scout group, giving advice, helping out at the local school, organising a residents’ or tenants’ association or an action group – all of these things serve to make life more enjoyable and the environment in which we live more pleasant.
So when Mrs. Thatcher told us there was no such thing as society was she denying that the altruism of what is admittedly an active minority actually existed, that there was behind all of it an ulterior, selfish motive? Or was it just an expression of wishful thinking?
To say there is no such thing as society suggests that people in general are concerned only with Number One, with the furtherance of their own careers and the unrelenting accumulation of personal wealth. It is a call to those who give of their free time to call it a day and to return home to the counting table. It envisions the whole of life as a metaphorical ladder upon which the objective is to climb whilst if necessary treading on the head of the person below.
If this is indeed what Mrs. Thatcher meant then why is it that a quarter of a century on another Conservative Prime Minister sees fit to champion what he calls The Big Society? He after all has never, as far as I am aware, denounced nor even distanced himself from the shocking opinions of his distant predecessor.
In the light of the commonality that exists between the Thatcherites of old and adherents of modern Conservatism it is reasonable to look upon Cameron’s Big Society with a certain degree of scepticism. What is it about the society that the Prime Minister envisages that would find favour amongst those who continue to venerate the undisputed champion of the culture of self?
The answer must logically be found in the fact that the voluntary sector offers something that professionals employed in the public sector per se cannot – work done for free. Why pay a librarian when a retired person looking to get out and meet people or a student in need of work experience and a reference can manage the local library on a day to day basis for nothing?
This cheapskate cynicism is rightly condemned by the Conservatives’ traditional opponents in the Labour Party. Sadly though the criticism focuses usually not upon the exploitative instincts that underpin the Tories’ new-found commitment to a society the very existence of which they were denying not so long ago, but upon the very rationale of volunteering and community self-help.
“Ordinary” people, we are told, are too busy scratching a living to be much bothered about putting anything into the community of which they are a part. All the average (acknowledgements Neil Peart) are concerned about is putting food on the table and clothes on their children’s backs.
Fortunately, so the argument continues, there exists an expert political class (them) whose calling is to manage all our society’s affairs for us. That political class comprises a social elite (whether by education or birthright is unclear) that is specially and uniquely trained to understand all our needs and to deliver them to us in the way that only it knows best.
Thursday, 8 December 2011
VICTORY!
Residents win epic court battle against Thames Water over Mogden
Thousands of residents are celebrating after the High Court today ruled in their favour at the culmination of their epic battle against the water giant and the odour nuisance that it has continued to inflict upon our community with the timid, indeed sometimes willing, acquiescence of the London Borough of Hounslow.
Mr Justice Ramsay upheld the claim by 1,350 litigants from Isleworth, Hounslow, Whitton, St. Margaret's and Twickenham that Thames Water was liable for breach of duty in relation to odour nuisance from its Isleworth-based Mogden plant.
The judge also found that Thames had breached claimants' human rights under the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 of the Convention which protects the enjoyment of home and family life.
Scandalously, legislation due to be introduced by the government will prevent communities from instigating actions such as this one in the future without accepting prohibitive financial risk.
Nevertheless right now is a time for rejoicing, and for expressing my sincere thanks to all those residents who have worked painstakingly through the Mogden Residents' Action Group over many years to bring this about, often in the face of infuriating obstruction, procrastination and betrayal from those upon whose support we should have been entitled to rely.
MRAG and the ICG will consider the full implications of the Council's handling of the Mogden issue and of its attitude towards campaigning residents during the coming weeks.
The full Press Statement released today by Steve Taylor of MRAG is as follows:
VICTORY FOR RESIDENTS AGAINST THAMES WATER
Residents successful in ‘David & Goliath’ battle
After 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".
ENDS
 |
| ICG leads protest against Mogden expansion in 2009 |
Mr Justice Ramsay upheld the claim by 1,350 litigants from Isleworth, Hounslow, Whitton, St. Margaret's and Twickenham that Thames Water was liable for breach of duty in relation to odour nuisance from its Isleworth-based Mogden plant.
The judge also found that Thames had breached claimants' human rights under the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 8 of the Convention which protects the enjoyment of home and family life.
Scandalously, legislation due to be introduced by the government will prevent communities from instigating actions such as this one in the future without accepting prohibitive financial risk.
Nevertheless right now is a time for rejoicing, and for expressing my sincere thanks to all those residents who have worked painstakingly through the Mogden Residents' Action Group over many years to bring this about, often in the face of infuriating obstruction, procrastination and betrayal from those upon whose support we should have been entitled to rely.
MRAG and the ICG will consider the full implications of the Council's handling of the Mogden issue and of its attitude towards campaigning residents during the coming weeks.
The full Press Statement released today by Steve Taylor of MRAG is as follows:
VICTORY FOR RESIDENTS AGAINST THAMES WATER
Residents successful in ‘David & Goliath’ battle
After 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".
ENDS
Monday, 8 November 2010
Entec report into Mogden odour now available
Please e-mail me at phil@communitygroup.org.uk if you would like a free copy of this 48-page PDF document.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Thames Water's and LBH's faecal attraction
The consultant Entec has been commissioned to hold a public consultation tonight on the odour nuisance created by the activities of Thames Water at the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works in Isleworth.
Although residents suffering the Mogden Pong for the most part reside in Isleworth, Whitton or Twickenham the meeting is being held at the Civic Centre in Hounslow, at least two miles away from most of Mogden's victims.
It begins at 7.00pm - not that most residents will know that, as the start time was accidentally omitted from the mailout that was allegedly delivered to 10,000 households in the area.
Most of the people within the claimed distribution area that MRAG (Mogden Residents' Action Group) have spoken to have not received a newsletter.
Questions sent by MRAG to Entec have not been responded to. We were told yesterday that Entec had taken a "policy decision" not to respond to individual questions. Apparently a question from a residents' group demonstrably representing thousands of households still constitutes an "individual question".
A cynic would suspect that tonight's meeting will be nothing but a stage-managed public relations exercise. A cynic would expect that the inevitably low turnout will lead the organisers to publicly aver that Mogden is not an issue for most residents.
And what, I wonder, would the same cynic make of the fact that Entec and Thames Water have chosen the Civic Centre as a "home" venue, when so much hot air has been expended over many years by successive administrations about the local authority being on the side of the residents?
Although residents suffering the Mogden Pong for the most part reside in Isleworth, Whitton or Twickenham the meeting is being held at the Civic Centre in Hounslow, at least two miles away from most of Mogden's victims.
It begins at 7.00pm - not that most residents will know that, as the start time was accidentally omitted from the mailout that was allegedly delivered to 10,000 households in the area.
Most of the people within the claimed distribution area that MRAG (Mogden Residents' Action Group) have spoken to have not received a newsletter.
Questions sent by MRAG to Entec have not been responded to. We were told yesterday that Entec had taken a "policy decision" not to respond to individual questions. Apparently a question from a residents' group demonstrably representing thousands of households still constitutes an "individual question".
A cynic would suspect that tonight's meeting will be nothing but a stage-managed public relations exercise. A cynic would expect that the inevitably low turnout will lead the organisers to publicly aver that Mogden is not an issue for most residents.
And what, I wonder, would the same cynic make of the fact that Entec and Thames Water have chosen the Civic Centre as a "home" venue, when so much hot air has been expended over many years by successive administrations about the local authority being on the side of the residents?
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Keeping on the scent at Mogden
Last night (Wednesday) I spent a useful couple of hours at Mogden Sewage Works attending the quarterly(ish) meeting of the Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee (MRLC), an ad hoc body set up by Thames Water as a means of maintaining a regular dialogue with councillors and officers from both Hounslow and Richmond and with local residents, the majority of whom are organised around the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG).
I attended in my capacity as an MRAG official.
Thames as always provided an update of what they claim to have been doing to help alleviate the ongoing problems of odour and mosquito blight that their operation inflicts upon the surrounding community.
There seems to be a widespread if not unanimous agreement that liaison between the water giant and residents' representatives seems to be being conducted in a more cordial atmosphere than has hitherto been the case, which of course is a very good thing, but Thames do in my view remain slippery at times and their dealings still do need to be monitored at close quarters.
The duty to involve residents in one particularly important project was considered by Thames to have been discharged by its willingness to brief the Environment Department at the London Borough of Hounslow. But despite the expertise and professionalism of the Environmental Health officers on the frontline Thames managers must be aware of the almost pathological unco-operativeness that was demonstrated by chief officers towards councillors involved with Mogden under the previous administration and which, I imagine, will be continued under this one. If Thames really does want to demonstrate goodwill towards its neighbours it will involve them at source rather than bypassing them in this manner.
In fairness I did pick up some genuinely positive vibes from the Thames management. Some questions submitted by e-mail from MRAG's Steve Taylor, who was unable to make the meeting, were read out and addressed by Thames, interestingly to the annoyance of a Hounslow Conservative councillor who protested loudly and angrily.
After the meeting I took the brief opportunity available to me to speak to Councillor Ed Mayne, one of the new elected members for Isleworth ward. I asked him how he was getting along in his Executive post as Lead Member for Community Safety, a post I myself held for the first three years of the previous administration. The officer team that works in and around Community Safety in Hounslow is truly fantastic and I told Ed that he was privileged to have been given such an exciting role. I am sure he will build well upon the fine work that I hope I did between 2006 and 2009, and the excellent work that I know Paul Fisher did after that.
I believe the four MRAG delegates did themselves and our community proud with their polite but relentless questioning at the meeting, sometimes on matters which were highly technical and requiring of considerable attention to detail. They are possibly the greatest local example of all of why, whilst councillors and officers play an important role, community is and always will be king.
I attended in my capacity as an MRAG official.
Thames as always provided an update of what they claim to have been doing to help alleviate the ongoing problems of odour and mosquito blight that their operation inflicts upon the surrounding community.
There seems to be a widespread if not unanimous agreement that liaison between the water giant and residents' representatives seems to be being conducted in a more cordial atmosphere than has hitherto been the case, which of course is a very good thing, but Thames do in my view remain slippery at times and their dealings still do need to be monitored at close quarters.
The duty to involve residents in one particularly important project was considered by Thames to have been discharged by its willingness to brief the Environment Department at the London Borough of Hounslow. But despite the expertise and professionalism of the Environmental Health officers on the frontline Thames managers must be aware of the almost pathological unco-operativeness that was demonstrated by chief officers towards councillors involved with Mogden under the previous administration and which, I imagine, will be continued under this one. If Thames really does want to demonstrate goodwill towards its neighbours it will involve them at source rather than bypassing them in this manner.
In fairness I did pick up some genuinely positive vibes from the Thames management. Some questions submitted by e-mail from MRAG's Steve Taylor, who was unable to make the meeting, were read out and addressed by Thames, interestingly to the annoyance of a Hounslow Conservative councillor who protested loudly and angrily.
After the meeting I took the brief opportunity available to me to speak to Councillor Ed Mayne, one of the new elected members for Isleworth ward. I asked him how he was getting along in his Executive post as Lead Member for Community Safety, a post I myself held for the first three years of the previous administration. The officer team that works in and around Community Safety in Hounslow is truly fantastic and I told Ed that he was privileged to have been given such an exciting role. I am sure he will build well upon the fine work that I hope I did between 2006 and 2009, and the excellent work that I know Paul Fisher did after that.
I believe the four MRAG delegates did themselves and our community proud with their polite but relentless questioning at the meeting, sometimes on matters which were highly technical and requiring of considerable attention to detail. They are possibly the greatest local example of all of why, whilst councillors and officers play an important role, community is and always will be king.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Burst water main in Brentford High Street
Statement issued by the London Borough of Hounslow, Wednesday 8th September 2010:
"A major water main has burst in the Brentford area – which has resulted in the part closure of London Road.
"Traffic entering Brentford at Syon Lane or Half Acre is being diverted away from the area.
"The burst water main has been switched off. We are aware that many people will be experiencing low water pressure or have no water. Thames Water will be bringing bottled water to the site. We will provide location information once we receive it.
"If you or your property have been affected by this incident, Thames Water loss adjustors are on site and can be contacted on 0845 72 000 890.
"Traffic diversions are still in place and people should check Tfl.gov.uk before starting their journey.
"Brentford High Street is likely to be closed for at least 10 days as repairs need to be undertaken to the road and footway."
"A major water main has burst in the Brentford area – which has resulted in the part closure of London Road.
"Traffic entering Brentford at Syon Lane or Half Acre is being diverted away from the area.
"The burst water main has been switched off. We are aware that many people will be experiencing low water pressure or have no water. Thames Water will be bringing bottled water to the site. We will provide location information once we receive it.
"If you or your property have been affected by this incident, Thames Water loss adjustors are on site and can be contacted on 0845 72 000 890.
"Traffic diversions are still in place and people should check Tfl.gov.uk before starting their journey.
"Brentford High Street is likely to be closed for at least 10 days as repairs need to be undertaken to the road and footway."
________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Syon flood victims may be entitled to compensation for disruption and inconvenience
Hugh James Solicitors have been acting for residents of Richmond and Hounslow in relation to claims against Thames Water concerning the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works. Residents who are victims of the recent Hounslow floods who are seeking advice* should visit
http://www.hughjames.com/news_centre/news_library/2010/august/flooding_damage.aspx
Even if residents are insured, there may be some expenses that won’t be recovered from the insurance company. There will also be a significant level of disruption and inconvenience caused over the next few weeks and months whilst repairs are carried out and residents may be entitled to compensation for this.
* Information provided courtesy of Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG).
http://www.hughjames.com/news_centre/news_library/2010/august/flooding_damage.aspx
Even if residents are insured, there may be some expenses that won’t be recovered from the insurance company. There will also be a significant level of disruption and inconvenience caused over the next few weeks and months whilst repairs are carried out and residents may be entitled to compensation for this.
* Information provided courtesy of Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG).
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Syon under water
Acknowledgements to Leo Vermeulen for the photograph____________________________________________
Needless to say I've been picking up lots of horror stories from the Syon estate, which has suffered the full impact of the flood caused by a fractured water pipe.
Several people I know have been decanted to nearby hotels and word is that some dwellings will be uninhabitable for quite a few months.
Let's hope all the parties and agencies responsible for dealing with the situation are on top of their game and that normality can be restored in the quickest possible time and with the minimum hardship to local residents.
Friday, 2 April 2010
Vince Cable MP supports residents' battle against Mogden Pong
Residents of Isleworth and Hounslow South received a very welcome boost yesterday (Thursday) morning when they were visited by Dr. Vince Cable MP, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, who joined Liberal Democrat PPC Councillor Andrew Dakers and eight ICG councillors and prospective candidates at the gates of Mogden Sewage Treatment Works to support our efforts to put an end to Thames Water's callous mismanagement of the plant.
Nearly 1,400 residents are currently engaged in a court battle with Thames in which they are seeking an injunction to compel the water giant to honour its obligations to the surrounding community. ICG councillors Paul and Shirley Fisher have given evidence at the High Court in support of the residents, and Councillor Dakers has attended the court to offer his moral support.
Included in the photo above are Cheryl-Ann Khan (Hounslow South prospective candidate, third from left), Tricia Doran (Hounslow South prospective candidate, fourth from left), Martin Murphy (Hounslow South prospective candidate, ninth from left), Shirley Fisher (Syon councillor and prospective candidate, eighth from left), Caroline Andrews (Syon councillor and prospective candidate, seventh from right), Paul Fisher (Isleworth councillor and prospective candidate, sixth from left), Andy Sibley (Isleworth prospective candidate, third from right) and myself (Isleworth councillor and prospective candidate, far right - no funnies please!).
Dr. Cable's support has always been welcomed by Hounslow and Isleworth residents in the absence of any contact from their own MP.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Mogden Litigation goes to the High Court
The Mogden Residents' Litigation against Thames Water is finally being heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in Central London, in a case which has been scheduled to take place over several weeks.It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the court proceedings on this blog whilst the case is still live, but we are hopeful that local residents will emerge vindicated.
Pictured right are Liberal Democrat councillor and Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Andrew Dakers, who has publicly called upon Thames to cover the storm tanks which are responsible for most of the odour generated by the plant, and ICG councillor for Isleworth ward Paul Fisher, who gave evidence to the court last week along with Councillor Shirley Fisher, who represents the neighbouring Syon ward.
Monday, 8 February 2010
Thames Water to fight Mogden abatement notices
Reproduced from his blog with acknowledgements to Councillor Andrew Dakers.
Just before Christmas the battle for a fair deal for residents over Mogden entered its latest phase as three Abatement notices were finally issued. This was a key milestone in the battle for better treatment of local residents by Thames Water. MRAG and Cllr Jon Hardy are to be congratulated in their persistence. It was good to see Jon get the recognition he deserves in the Hounslow & Brentford Times as Thames Water, unsurprisingly announce they will be appealing against the Abatement notices. In my view the Leader of the Council was unduly credited for Jon's work in the local media before Christmas.
Along with my colleague Vince Cable MP I have argued that alongside the expansion of the plant approved last year it is essential the six storm water tanks are covered.
For residents that witnessed the Mogden expansion S106 agreement coming back to the Sustainable Development Committee it would have been a depressing experience. Some days after the meeting I am pleased to say that one of the concerns that Cllr Hardy and I pressed on was addressed with the agreement text being revised to read: "......which will be undertaken by an external INDEPENDENT specialist consultancy TO BE JOINTLY AGREED BETWEEN THAMES WATER AND THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW."
This revised text seems like a good step forward. In implementing this clause though it is vital is that the procurement process is open and transparent and that a cross section of local councillors are involved. I wonder how quickly the Terms of Reference will be drafted?
Cllr Hardy is rightly - at times against the odds - trying to get the different stakeholders to work together to control the blight that is the Mogden stench. It is tough, but thank goodness someone with his tenacity is ensuring residents concerns are heard within the council.
Just before Christmas the battle for a fair deal for residents over Mogden entered its latest phase as three Abatement notices were finally issued. This was a key milestone in the battle for better treatment of local residents by Thames Water. MRAG and Cllr Jon Hardy are to be congratulated in their persistence. It was good to see Jon get the recognition he deserves in the Hounslow & Brentford Times as Thames Water, unsurprisingly announce they will be appealing against the Abatement notices. In my view the Leader of the Council was unduly credited for Jon's work in the local media before Christmas.
Along with my colleague Vince Cable MP I have argued that alongside the expansion of the plant approved last year it is essential the six storm water tanks are covered.
For residents that witnessed the Mogden expansion S106 agreement coming back to the Sustainable Development Committee it would have been a depressing experience. Some days after the meeting I am pleased to say that one of the concerns that Cllr Hardy and I pressed on was addressed with the agreement text being revised to read: "......which will be undertaken by an external INDEPENDENT specialist consultancy TO BE JOINTLY AGREED BETWEEN THAMES WATER AND THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW."
This revised text seems like a good step forward. In implementing this clause though it is vital is that the procurement process is open and transparent and that a cross section of local councillors are involved. I wonder how quickly the Terms of Reference will be drafted?
Cllr Hardy is rightly - at times against the odds - trying to get the different stakeholders to work together to control the blight that is the Mogden stench. It is tough, but thank goodness someone with his tenacity is ensuring residents concerns are heard within the council.
Friday, 25 September 2009
Thames Water tells councillors: "We won't speak to residents until we get our way over Section 106!"
Wednesday, 23rd September 2009 is a date that will be remembered for a long time to come in Isleworth activist circles. It was the date on which local politicians of varying hues, as well as not a few officers from the London Borough of Hounslow, were finally able to see for themselves what we in Isleworth have had to put up with for years in our dealings with the unrepentant pollutant that is Thames Water. Those who may have laboured under the polite misapprehension that we are perhaps a tad too militant, and distrusting, in our dealings with our neighbour from hell were at last given cause to understand it is why we and our residents adopt the stance we do.
Councillors Andrew Dakers, Ruth Cadbury, Barbara Reid and Brad Fisher joined their ICG counterparts Jon Hardy, Paul Fisher and myself at a meeting of the Thames-led Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee (the holding of which is a legal requirement under the terms of the Legal Agreement between Thames and the local authority following earlier court action) and witnessed for themselves the spin, the persistent sleight of hand manoeuvring and obfuscation of this wealthy public utility which prefers to fight its neighbours in court than dip even furtively into its own rather vast pockets to honour its legal and moral obligations.
Sadly Ruth and Andrew had moved on to other engagements before the piece de la resistance was delivered shortly before the close of the meeting. The Section 106 terms which were laid out by the council's Sustainable Development Committee on that night of shame in March have yet to be agreed to by Thames, and yet astounded members and officers heard Thames deliver its ultimatum - that until we signed off the agreement, on its terms rather than the ones approved by SDC, they would not send out any information to residents about what was happening at the site.
Meanwhile members of the press who had been asked by the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) to attend the meeting and witness events were refused entrance at the gate.
Despite the tight grip which Thames maintained over the conduct of the meeting, the councillors and members of MRAG were able to ask probing questions about the management of the site. As is so often the case, "new guy" was in the hot seat and his response to most questions, as was doubtless his brief, was that he couldn't answer them because they referred to matters and incidents which predated his arrival at the plant.
One could be ungracious and point out, as is certainly true, that some of the councillors who quite clearly took the residents' part at the MRLC meeting would have served those residents a whole lot better by not having capitulated to Thames at SDC in the first place. Nonetheless there was a definite sense about the place that the game was finally up. No amount of private briefing of senior figures on the council, as one member of the Thames party let slip at the meeting had taken place very recently, will change the fact that the residents are increasingly in control of the situation, and that in the long term resistance is futile.
Councillors Andrew Dakers, Ruth Cadbury, Barbara Reid and Brad Fisher joined their ICG counterparts Jon Hardy, Paul Fisher and myself at a meeting of the Thames-led Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee (the holding of which is a legal requirement under the terms of the Legal Agreement between Thames and the local authority following earlier court action) and witnessed for themselves the spin, the persistent sleight of hand manoeuvring and obfuscation of this wealthy public utility which prefers to fight its neighbours in court than dip even furtively into its own rather vast pockets to honour its legal and moral obligations.
Sadly Ruth and Andrew had moved on to other engagements before the piece de la resistance was delivered shortly before the close of the meeting. The Section 106 terms which were laid out by the council's Sustainable Development Committee on that night of shame in March have yet to be agreed to by Thames, and yet astounded members and officers heard Thames deliver its ultimatum - that until we signed off the agreement, on its terms rather than the ones approved by SDC, they would not send out any information to residents about what was happening at the site.
Meanwhile members of the press who had been asked by the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) to attend the meeting and witness events were refused entrance at the gate.
Despite the tight grip which Thames maintained over the conduct of the meeting, the councillors and members of MRAG were able to ask probing questions about the management of the site. As is so often the case, "new guy" was in the hot seat and his response to most questions, as was doubtless his brief, was that he couldn't answer them because they referred to matters and incidents which predated his arrival at the plant.
One could be ungracious and point out, as is certainly true, that some of the councillors who quite clearly took the residents' part at the MRLC meeting would have served those residents a whole lot better by not having capitulated to Thames at SDC in the first place. Nonetheless there was a definite sense about the place that the game was finally up. No amount of private briefing of senior figures on the council, as one member of the Thames party let slip at the meeting had taken place very recently, will change the fact that the residents are increasingly in control of the situation, and that in the long term resistance is futile.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
Mogden - at last a politician speaks out!
Liberal Democrat councillor and Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Andrew Dakers (left), backed by the respected Liberal Democrat MP for Twickenham Dr. Vince Cable, has come out openly in support of local residents suffering the blight of Mogden Sewage Treatment Works.Acknowledging the misery that has been ignored by politicians of many political persuasions and timeserving chief officers at the local authority, Andrew has called publicly for the covering by Thames Water of the six remaining storm tanks at Mogden by the end of 2010 irrespective of whether the wealthy utility company is permitted by OFWAT to raise the money from its own long-suffering victims as opposed to committing a tiny proportion of its vast profits towards discharging its legal responsibilities to its neighbours.
Presently Thames Water is quite brazen about its unwillingness to honour its obligations either to the surrounding community or to the environment in general by dipping into its own resources to enable it to function responsibly and within the law. Sadly it has fallen upon residents themselves to bring them to book, and at present 1,400 local people are party to a Group Litigation which seeks to compel Thames to comply with environmental legislation.
Andrew announced last week: “I welcome the initiative led by Cllr Jon Hardy to establish a 24hr telephone line and mobile odour recording facility in the past few weeks.
“If the Council is to take further action to halt the odour problem it is now vitally important that residents report instances of odour to the hotline: 020 8583 5555 during office hours (Monday – Friday 8.45am to 5pm) and 020 8583 2222 out of hours (5pm – 8.45am Weekdays / all weekend).
“Residents should also ensure that all complaints are emailed to MRAG (mrag27@aol.com) for logging and investigation.
“Given the continued impact of Mogden odour on the local community, I support (ICG) Cllr Hardy’s endeavour to serve an abatement notice on Thames Water.
“It would be great to see Thames Water take the lead in ending the odour blighting residents lives and bring this costly debate to an end, rather than leaving residents suffering for what could be at least five years.“Only two of eight storm tanks are currently covered. Waiting another four or five years until the current expansion programme is completed to discover whether use of the storm tanks has lessened and the odour abated is not good enough. If your child can not concentrate on their homework because of the odour, as many residents have complained to me, then you have good reason for continued concern.
“Thames Water management should begin planning the investment immediately to cover the remaining storm tanks. This should no longer be considered dependent on a contribution by OFWAT but good management of the plant.
“My suggestion is that Thames Water focus on covering an additional three storm tanks by the end of March 2010 and, if the odour has not reduced substantially during next summer, the final three by the end of next year.
“We must not lose sight of the fact that relative to expanding the sewage works, covering the storm tanks should neither be considered prohibitively expensive nor a particularly lengthy build.”
Hopefully other politicians will now finally realise that there is a huge constituency of residents living around the Mogden plant who have been sold short and will be forthcoming with their own offers of support. Thames Water has lived for too long off the passivity and lack of respect for our community that has been demonstrated hitherto by so many who ought to know better. Let's hope Andrew's support will turn the tide in our community's favour.Saturday, 12 September 2009
An ICG perspective on THAT article
It is not under normal circumstances the done thing to be discussing in public the internal business of the coalition which manages the London Borough of Hounslow. However when a magazine arrives through the letter-boxes of scores of thousands of residents that contains a story of major import with which this coalition partner would take fundamental issue it is rather too late to be having the discussion behind closed doors.
The article to which I refer was, of course, the full-page apologia in the local authority's house magazine Hounslow Matters for the policy of our coalition partners towards the proposed expansion by Thames Water of Mogden Sewage Works in Isleworth. That policy, as we know, is to give Thames Water carte blanche to turn an already mismanaged site into a larger mismanaged site, with all the potential for increased mismanagement which that must inevitably entail. Despite a lot of unconvincing and frankly half-hearted twaddle about the approval giving the local authority "more control" over Thames Water's activities (control which it already had, but has hitherto declined to use), the primary rationale for permission being granted was clearly a cost-driven reluctance to take on Thames Water at any possible appeal hearing. Having been unprepared to incur the displeasure of Thames Water, the resultant displeasure of the residents who are to be the victims of the decision then had also to be addressed. Hence the article.
As Leader of the Community Group, the problem with the article for me is that attempting to sell residents our partners' side of the story can only possibly be done by implying that our own take on the subject, which is completely different, must ipso facto be in some way or another erroneous. That the local authority's Communications team was willing to do this has effectively served notice on us that it considers itself to be working for one party to the coalition only.
Worse still, the article quite deviously attempted to associate the Community Group itself with the decision to grant approval to the expansion plans by only quoting the (ICG) Lead Member, and in such a way as to imply that he supported this quite appalling decision.
As a consequence of this latest development Community Group postholders will henceforth increasingly be liaising with the local media through our own channels of communication. And on the particular subject of Mogden we will be liaising with residents in the way that we have always done best.
It is my personal view that we in the Community Group have enjoyed a good relationship with our coalition partners and one which has flourished in an atmosphere of goodwill and trust. I see no reason why this should not continue. However we are increasingly of the view that there are some within the organisation who are taking us for fools and who feel they are doing our partners some kind of service by provoking us in an ever more brazen and obvious way as we head towards next year's local elections. Like everyone who has crossed our paths over the years, they will have cause to reconsider.
The article to which I refer was, of course, the full-page apologia in the local authority's house magazine Hounslow Matters for the policy of our coalition partners towards the proposed expansion by Thames Water of Mogden Sewage Works in Isleworth. That policy, as we know, is to give Thames Water carte blanche to turn an already mismanaged site into a larger mismanaged site, with all the potential for increased mismanagement which that must inevitably entail. Despite a lot of unconvincing and frankly half-hearted twaddle about the approval giving the local authority "more control" over Thames Water's activities (control which it already had, but has hitherto declined to use), the primary rationale for permission being granted was clearly a cost-driven reluctance to take on Thames Water at any possible appeal hearing. Having been unprepared to incur the displeasure of Thames Water, the resultant displeasure of the residents who are to be the victims of the decision then had also to be addressed. Hence the article.
As Leader of the Community Group, the problem with the article for me is that attempting to sell residents our partners' side of the story can only possibly be done by implying that our own take on the subject, which is completely different, must ipso facto be in some way or another erroneous. That the local authority's Communications team was willing to do this has effectively served notice on us that it considers itself to be working for one party to the coalition only.
Worse still, the article quite deviously attempted to associate the Community Group itself with the decision to grant approval to the expansion plans by only quoting the (ICG) Lead Member, and in such a way as to imply that he supported this quite appalling decision.
As a consequence of this latest development Community Group postholders will henceforth increasingly be liaising with the local media through our own channels of communication. And on the particular subject of Mogden we will be liaising with residents in the way that we have always done best.
It is my personal view that we in the Community Group have enjoyed a good relationship with our coalition partners and one which has flourished in an atmosphere of goodwill and trust. I see no reason why this should not continue. However we are increasingly of the view that there are some within the organisation who are taking us for fools and who feel they are doing our partners some kind of service by provoking us in an ever more brazen and obvious way as we head towards next year's local elections. Like everyone who has crossed our paths over the years, they will have cause to reconsider.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Now Ann cuts Mogden community adrift
Sorry to keep banging on about the Keens, but an extraordinary development yesterday left me wondering just what kind of advice our Member of Parliament is receiving.
Users of the BrentfordTW8.com and ChiswickW4.com community forums will be aware that a spokesperson for Ann Keen recently threatened that his party would "work around" the resident-led Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG), which for many years has served as the voice of the organised community living in the vicinity of the plant and whose authority to do so derives from public meetings attended by hundreds, a petition signed by several thousand and a group action involving some 1,400 litigants.
To understand the thinking behind this one has to look back into the history of the conflict in and around Isleworth between the residents' movement and New Labour. This conflict is essentially one between two broad schools of thought. One (theirs) has it that only a small, select group of people who are essentially "in the know" and have the requisite intelligence, guile and expertise (them) are truly capable of representing the people's interests and that the role of the wider community is to elect them to positions of office - not just strictly political office but also within residents' associations, amenity groups and suchlike - and then stand back and leave it to them to do what needs to be done on our behalf.
The other (ours) has it that the community itself should aspire to take the lead on local issues and that the role of their elected political leadership is simply to provide guidance, advice and assistance where asked for.
It would have been as a direct follow-up to her spokesperson's threat that, on August 22nd (a Saturday?), Mrs. Keen allegedly met privately with an unnamed Director of Thames Water without any prior consultation with the residents. The Director, we are told, regaled her with the usual empty spiel about how concerned the company is for the plight of long-suffering residents, advised her of a meeting of the Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee to take place in September of which the rest of us have already long been aware, and informed her (and from the wording of her Press Statement it came as news) that nearly six months ago the local authority had granted permission for a 40% expansion of the plant's capacity.
According to Mrs. Keen she was "delighted" by news of the plant's expansion, and following publication of the Press Statement her spokesperson raced onto the local internet forums to announce "Ann Keen Speaks Up For Local Residents"!
And yet, of course, what she has done is added her own name to the already long list of politicians who have consigned residents already suffering the excesses of Mogden to even more misery as Thames sets about making a case for reneging on its promise not to increase intake, which anybody who is familiar with its track record knows it inevitably will.
By her actions Mrs. Keen has without question kissed goodbye to almost any remaining support she might have had within a two-mile radius of Mogden. That they consider her betrayal something to gloat about would suggest that Camp Keen is either woefully ignorant of local issues and has given her the worst possible advice or, more likely, that they have already given up and that the remainder of her campaign is to be a mere "spoiling" exercise in which she intends to wreak as much "revenge" as possible upon her ungrateful constituents.
Whichever is the case she's bought it, but on a parliamentary level at least the question remains - who will speak up for the residents living around Mogden?
Users of the BrentfordTW8.com and ChiswickW4.com community forums will be aware that a spokesperson for Ann Keen recently threatened that his party would "work around" the resident-led Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG), which for many years has served as the voice of the organised community living in the vicinity of the plant and whose authority to do so derives from public meetings attended by hundreds, a petition signed by several thousand and a group action involving some 1,400 litigants.
To understand the thinking behind this one has to look back into the history of the conflict in and around Isleworth between the residents' movement and New Labour. This conflict is essentially one between two broad schools of thought. One (theirs) has it that only a small, select group of people who are essentially "in the know" and have the requisite intelligence, guile and expertise (them) are truly capable of representing the people's interests and that the role of the wider community is to elect them to positions of office - not just strictly political office but also within residents' associations, amenity groups and suchlike - and then stand back and leave it to them to do what needs to be done on our behalf.
The other (ours) has it that the community itself should aspire to take the lead on local issues and that the role of their elected political leadership is simply to provide guidance, advice and assistance where asked for.
It would have been as a direct follow-up to her spokesperson's threat that, on August 22nd (a Saturday?), Mrs. Keen allegedly met privately with an unnamed Director of Thames Water without any prior consultation with the residents. The Director, we are told, regaled her with the usual empty spiel about how concerned the company is for the plight of long-suffering residents, advised her of a meeting of the Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee to take place in September of which the rest of us have already long been aware, and informed her (and from the wording of her Press Statement it came as news) that nearly six months ago the local authority had granted permission for a 40% expansion of the plant's capacity.
According to Mrs. Keen she was "delighted" by news of the plant's expansion, and following publication of the Press Statement her spokesperson raced onto the local internet forums to announce "Ann Keen Speaks Up For Local Residents"!
And yet, of course, what she has done is added her own name to the already long list of politicians who have consigned residents already suffering the excesses of Mogden to even more misery as Thames sets about making a case for reneging on its promise not to increase intake, which anybody who is familiar with its track record knows it inevitably will.
By her actions Mrs. Keen has without question kissed goodbye to almost any remaining support she might have had within a two-mile radius of Mogden. That they consider her betrayal something to gloat about would suggest that Camp Keen is either woefully ignorant of local issues and has given her the worst possible advice or, more likely, that they have already given up and that the remainder of her campaign is to be a mere "spoiling" exercise in which she intends to wreak as much "revenge" as possible upon her ungrateful constituents.
Whichever is the case she's bought it, but on a parliamentary level at least the question remains - who will speak up for the residents living around Mogden?
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Thames Water and its not-quite-so-urgent planning application - five months on
Those who are familiar with the workings of council planning committees - and I speak as Chair of the local one in Isleworth and Brentford - will know pretty much how they work.
An application is made, consultation takes place amongst those concerned and an officer will produce a report which will conclude with a recommendation either for Approval or Refusal depending on his or her expert opinion based upon the available facts.
At the planning meeting elected members will discuss the report and form their own opinions on the strength of the information presented to them on the night. In doing so they will place much import on the expert opinion of the officer but will, on occasions, see things differently and vote accordingly.
I would like people reading this article, particularly those familiar with the planning process, to consider a completely fictitious scenario. Mr. Bloggs wishes to build an extension to the rear of his house. The proposed extension is hideous, too tall, out of sync with the street scene and will block out all of his neighbour's sunlight. He discusses his application with officers who feel that stringent conditions should be imposed before approval can be recommended. But Mr. Bloggs doesn't accept any of the conditions. He is in a hurry to build his extension because he wants to sell his house.
So when the application comes to Area Committee officers inform members that they should approve this clearly inappropriate development subject to the few conditions that Mr. Bloggs is prepared to accept. They acknowledge that the proposed extension will be the cause of great anxiety to his neighbours, but urge members to approve it and approve it quickly all the same because Mr. Bloggs wants to sell his house. He needs the money.
Anybody who has witnessed a debate at IBAC or any other Area Committee will know that such a conversation would never take place. Our officers, professionals to their fingertips, would urge the Committee to reject the application on the grounds that it was inappropriate, and that the actions of the applicant in refusing to accept conditions were unreasonable. The importance of the development to the applicant would not be a consideration. It would be a dereliction of duty to the neighbouring community were the officers or the members to proceed in any other way under such circumstances.
Now, imagine the applicant is called Thames Water. The date is 4th March 2009. The planning body is the Sustainable Development Committee. The full debate can be witnessed on the webcast by clicking here (you will need to download Real Player from the site if you don't already have it). The applicant, Thames Water, has refused to accept conditions suggested by our officers to protect the quality of life of those residents who will be affected by the proposed expansion of Mogden Sewage Treatment Works. And yet those same officers plead with elected members to approve the application and to do it now on the grounds that the applicant needs to get on with it "urgently".
As we know, after a few fine words had been uttered the majority on SDC cravenly kowtowed to Thames Water and to the officer recommendation to approve. The applicant, uniquely, had been allowed to dictate its own conditions and could now progress with its "urgent" expansion project and make lots more money for its shareholders at the expense of long-suffering residents of Isleworth and Hounslow South.
Odd then that, more than five months down the line, the same applicant has yet to put pen to paper and agree terms!
The reason? Because, emboldened by the unconditional co-operation of the local bureaucracy and the cowardice/gross stupidity of most of the members who took the decision to approve, it now feels confident enough to challenge even the feeble conditions which it had earlier condescended to accept. Comfortable in the belief that the officers will bend over backwards not to bring the application back to SDC for a third time, and that even if they do the members will gratefully adopt doormat status again, Thames is quite shamelessly trying to extract every last buck from a situation in which it probably still can't quite believe its luck.
So it would appear the "urgent" decision taken in March was not really quite so urgent after all. Culture change? Oh yes - believe me - it's coming!
An application is made, consultation takes place amongst those concerned and an officer will produce a report which will conclude with a recommendation either for Approval or Refusal depending on his or her expert opinion based upon the available facts.
At the planning meeting elected members will discuss the report and form their own opinions on the strength of the information presented to them on the night. In doing so they will place much import on the expert opinion of the officer but will, on occasions, see things differently and vote accordingly.
I would like people reading this article, particularly those familiar with the planning process, to consider a completely fictitious scenario. Mr. Bloggs wishes to build an extension to the rear of his house. The proposed extension is hideous, too tall, out of sync with the street scene and will block out all of his neighbour's sunlight. He discusses his application with officers who feel that stringent conditions should be imposed before approval can be recommended. But Mr. Bloggs doesn't accept any of the conditions. He is in a hurry to build his extension because he wants to sell his house.
So when the application comes to Area Committee officers inform members that they should approve this clearly inappropriate development subject to the few conditions that Mr. Bloggs is prepared to accept. They acknowledge that the proposed extension will be the cause of great anxiety to his neighbours, but urge members to approve it and approve it quickly all the same because Mr. Bloggs wants to sell his house. He needs the money.
Anybody who has witnessed a debate at IBAC or any other Area Committee will know that such a conversation would never take place. Our officers, professionals to their fingertips, would urge the Committee to reject the application on the grounds that it was inappropriate, and that the actions of the applicant in refusing to accept conditions were unreasonable. The importance of the development to the applicant would not be a consideration. It would be a dereliction of duty to the neighbouring community were the officers or the members to proceed in any other way under such circumstances.
Now, imagine the applicant is called Thames Water. The date is 4th March 2009. The planning body is the Sustainable Development Committee. The full debate can be witnessed on the webcast by clicking here (you will need to download Real Player from the site if you don't already have it). The applicant, Thames Water, has refused to accept conditions suggested by our officers to protect the quality of life of those residents who will be affected by the proposed expansion of Mogden Sewage Treatment Works. And yet those same officers plead with elected members to approve the application and to do it now on the grounds that the applicant needs to get on with it "urgently".
As we know, after a few fine words had been uttered the majority on SDC cravenly kowtowed to Thames Water and to the officer recommendation to approve. The applicant, uniquely, had been allowed to dictate its own conditions and could now progress with its "urgent" expansion project and make lots more money for its shareholders at the expense of long-suffering residents of Isleworth and Hounslow South.
Odd then that, more than five months down the line, the same applicant has yet to put pen to paper and agree terms!
The reason? Because, emboldened by the unconditional co-operation of the local bureaucracy and the cowardice/gross stupidity of most of the members who took the decision to approve, it now feels confident enough to challenge even the feeble conditions which it had earlier condescended to accept. Comfortable in the belief that the officers will bend over backwards not to bring the application back to SDC for a third time, and that even if they do the members will gratefully adopt doormat status again, Thames is quite shamelessly trying to extract every last buck from a situation in which it probably still can't quite believe its luck.
So it would appear the "urgent" decision taken in March was not really quite so urgent after all. Culture change? Oh yes - believe me - it's coming!
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Groundhog Day
On March 4th Hounslow Council's Sustainable Development Committee infamously gave planning permission to the water giant Thames Water to expand its foul-smelling Mogden sewage plant, allowing for a massive increase in capacity.
At that meeting, officers of the London Borough of Hounslow recommended approval of the application on the grounds that to so do would give the local authority more "control" over Thames Water's operation and in particular would enable us to challenge the company's notoriously dismissive attitude towards the protests of long-suffering local residents. Whilst doing so they omitted to explain to Committee members that the local authority already had all the power it needed to exercise such control as a result of Abatement Notices which it had secured previously, but lacked the will or desire to enforce.
There followed a presentation by the officers and some slick patter from Thames, who misled the Committee by quite falsely claiming that it could not agree to residents' requests to cover its storm tanks - a necessary precondition of meaningful odour reduction - because it required permission to do so from the water regulator OfWAT. Despite knowing this to be completely untrue, officers at the meeting chose not to point out to members that Thames was not telling them the truth.
When the officers and Thames were done a well-briefed duo of New Labour councillors rushed forward to respectively propose and second approval of the officer recommendation. At first other councillors resisted, even at one stage voting for refusal, but after being subjected to a relentless and unprecedented barrage from Thames, the Labour duo and council officers the majority, with the honourable exception of ICG councillor Jon Hardy, cravenly relented and gave the Thames Water bullies everything they had asked for.
Reassured by Hounslow's moral cowardice Thames' next move, rather than thanking their luck and getting on with the job, was typically to stall for even further concessions. But, having procrastinated over even the useless conditions attached to the permission given to them on March 4th, they created a problem for themselves by so doing because they had effectively talked themselves out of the deal, and consequently the whole application came back to SDC yesterday evening.
During the intervening period we in the ICG have done much to try to raise the profile of this whole disgraceful episode. Following idiotic comments to the effect that as the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) had only send one speaker to SDC on March 4th the wider public were therefore not bothered by the proposed expansion, MRAG and the ICG called a Day of Action on April 1st during which thousands of leaflets were distributed in Isleworth, Hounslow South and Whitton and close to 100 protestors came out at a few hours' notice to demonstrate the public's disgust over the conduct of the SDC.
Perhaps more significantly, we forced the appointment of Councillor Jon Hardy to the specific portfolio area of liaison with Thames Water.
Traditionally, dealings with Thames Water had fallen within the general remit of Environment. Aware that we had been getting nowhere back in 2008, we informed the Leader of the Council at the time that we would like Mogden to become a specific responsibility under the leadership of an ICG councillor, and Councillor Paul Fisher was duly appointed to the role. Within hours of hearing the news, officers had lobbied the Borough Solicitor who pointed out, perhaps not unreasonably, that as a participant in the residents' litigation against Thames Water Paul could be perceived to have a conflict of interest, and was thus effectively neutered. The indecent haste with which Paul's appointment was scuppered however gives some indication as to how relatively protected senior officers had felt under the previous set-up.
This year things were different. Jon is not a litigant and as such his appointment to the portfolio cannot be challenged. Nevertheless, there was the small matter of the planning application which was now being brought back to SDC, giving those who had been played for mugs at the previous meeting an unusual second opportunity to get up off their knees and strike a blow for the residents of Isleworth and neighbouring areas.
Sadly it was not to be. Deja vu all over again - officers recommending approval, New Labour members of the Committee proposing it and the Muppet Show giving a virtuoso repeat performance after a few worthless token words of disapproval about the excesses of the plant's operation. Thames Water must be laughing hysterically, but the residents are unlikely to see the funny side.
Residents of Isleworth, and their delegates in the form of the ICG, have once again been served notice that we stand alone. Increasingly cocky officers who think they only have a few months longer to put up with us find common cause with "allies" whose interest in Isleworth wanes with every day closer we get to the end of our term of office and opponents who, just as they did when they held sway in Isleworth, simply seem to derive some kind of perverted pleasure from making our residents suffer.
Councillor Hardy, who has already proved to be a fearsome campaigner for the rights of the Mogden residents, takes a very gentlemanly approach to fighting these battles. At the end of yesterday's meeting he even thanked the Chair of the Committee for giving him a fair hearing. Our civility and manners cannot be held against us, and our response now and in the future to the hammering that we continue to receive from friend and foe alike over Mogden should not be taken personally by anybody concerned.
But anybody who doubts that that response will be a very, very vigorous one indeed had better open their coffee jar and take a deep, deep sniff sometime extremely soon.
LATEST - Today's Hounslow Chronicle (12th June 2009) has wrongly reported Councillor Paul Fisher as having voted in support of the expansion of Mogden. This is completely untrue. Paul is no longer even a member of the SDC, and has made it clear he would have supported the residents by opposing the recommendation had he been in a position to do so.
The Chronicle has agreed to print a retraction in its next issue.
At that meeting, officers of the London Borough of Hounslow recommended approval of the application on the grounds that to so do would give the local authority more "control" over Thames Water's operation and in particular would enable us to challenge the company's notoriously dismissive attitude towards the protests of long-suffering local residents. Whilst doing so they omitted to explain to Committee members that the local authority already had all the power it needed to exercise such control as a result of Abatement Notices which it had secured previously, but lacked the will or desire to enforce.
There followed a presentation by the officers and some slick patter from Thames, who misled the Committee by quite falsely claiming that it could not agree to residents' requests to cover its storm tanks - a necessary precondition of meaningful odour reduction - because it required permission to do so from the water regulator OfWAT. Despite knowing this to be completely untrue, officers at the meeting chose not to point out to members that Thames was not telling them the truth.
When the officers and Thames were done a well-briefed duo of New Labour councillors rushed forward to respectively propose and second approval of the officer recommendation. At first other councillors resisted, even at one stage voting for refusal, but after being subjected to a relentless and unprecedented barrage from Thames, the Labour duo and council officers the majority, with the honourable exception of ICG councillor Jon Hardy, cravenly relented and gave the Thames Water bullies everything they had asked for.
Reassured by Hounslow's moral cowardice Thames' next move, rather than thanking their luck and getting on with the job, was typically to stall for even further concessions. But, having procrastinated over even the useless conditions attached to the permission given to them on March 4th, they created a problem for themselves by so doing because they had effectively talked themselves out of the deal, and consequently the whole application came back to SDC yesterday evening.
During the intervening period we in the ICG have done much to try to raise the profile of this whole disgraceful episode. Following idiotic comments to the effect that as the Mogden Residents' Action Group (MRAG) had only send one speaker to SDC on March 4th the wider public were therefore not bothered by the proposed expansion, MRAG and the ICG called a Day of Action on April 1st during which thousands of leaflets were distributed in Isleworth, Hounslow South and Whitton and close to 100 protestors came out at a few hours' notice to demonstrate the public's disgust over the conduct of the SDC.
Perhaps more significantly, we forced the appointment of Councillor Jon Hardy to the specific portfolio area of liaison with Thames Water.
Traditionally, dealings with Thames Water had fallen within the general remit of Environment. Aware that we had been getting nowhere back in 2008, we informed the Leader of the Council at the time that we would like Mogden to become a specific responsibility under the leadership of an ICG councillor, and Councillor Paul Fisher was duly appointed to the role. Within hours of hearing the news, officers had lobbied the Borough Solicitor who pointed out, perhaps not unreasonably, that as a participant in the residents' litigation against Thames Water Paul could be perceived to have a conflict of interest, and was thus effectively neutered. The indecent haste with which Paul's appointment was scuppered however gives some indication as to how relatively protected senior officers had felt under the previous set-up.
This year things were different. Jon is not a litigant and as such his appointment to the portfolio cannot be challenged. Nevertheless, there was the small matter of the planning application which was now being brought back to SDC, giving those who had been played for mugs at the previous meeting an unusual second opportunity to get up off their knees and strike a blow for the residents of Isleworth and neighbouring areas.
Sadly it was not to be. Deja vu all over again - officers recommending approval, New Labour members of the Committee proposing it and the Muppet Show giving a virtuoso repeat performance after a few worthless token words of disapproval about the excesses of the plant's operation. Thames Water must be laughing hysterically, but the residents are unlikely to see the funny side.
Residents of Isleworth, and their delegates in the form of the ICG, have once again been served notice that we stand alone. Increasingly cocky officers who think they only have a few months longer to put up with us find common cause with "allies" whose interest in Isleworth wanes with every day closer we get to the end of our term of office and opponents who, just as they did when they held sway in Isleworth, simply seem to derive some kind of perverted pleasure from making our residents suffer.
Councillor Hardy, who has already proved to be a fearsome campaigner for the rights of the Mogden residents, takes a very gentlemanly approach to fighting these battles. At the end of yesterday's meeting he even thanked the Chair of the Committee for giving him a fair hearing. Our civility and manners cannot be held against us, and our response now and in the future to the hammering that we continue to receive from friend and foe alike over Mogden should not be taken personally by anybody concerned.
But anybody who doubts that that response will be a very, very vigorous one indeed had better open their coffee jar and take a deep, deep sniff sometime extremely soon.
LATEST - Today's Hounslow Chronicle (12th June 2009) has wrongly reported Councillor Paul Fisher as having voted in support of the expansion of Mogden. This is completely untrue. Paul is no longer even a member of the SDC, and has made it clear he would have supported the residents by opposing the recommendation had he been in a position to do so.
The Chronicle has agreed to print a retraction in its next issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)