H&F Council’s ‘Super Sewer’ Shenanigans, Part Two – The Facts From The Public Meeting

About six weeks before the 2005 general election H&F Conservatives put out a story that the Government was going to close Charing Cross Hospital. The public were taken in and it won the Tories around 3000 extra local votes in that election. At the time, when I asked the Conservatives about their “Save Charing Cross” propaganda, one prominent member admitted to me that they knew it wasn’t true, and advised me to “look at the small print on the back of their leaflet”. The fact that Charing Cross hasn’t closed and that instead, the hospital is just about to receive record new investment and a much wider range of facilities has gone without mention from our local Conservatives. Their interest was always just about the votes.

So, when I read H&F Conservatives stories about the ‘Super Sewer’ I was more than a little sceptical. Our local Tories and Council have spent tens of thousands of pounds of council tax payers' money telling residents how “giant craters” will be driven into Furnival Gardens and Ravenscourt Park to build a huge “Stink Pipe” causing “at least eight years of chaos”. It’s now clear that much of this is plainly not true.

On Monday night, a publiic meeting took place concerning the ‘Super Sewer’ – which is officially known as the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The meeting was opened by a Conservative councillor who told residents that he, his colleagues and the Council are yet to form a view on the scheme and hoped this meeting would help that process. This was a slightly peculiar thing for him to say as he has recently published comments saying his administration “is bitterly opposing the super-sewer project on the basis that the cost, chaos from eight years of construction, and loss of open space outweighs any benefits.”

Thames Water’s Richard Aylard then got on to the points which of were of greatest concern to residents. Mr. Aylard confirmed that Ravenscourt Park was never considered for any Thames Tideway Tunnel works (as previously reported here) and explained that Furnival Gardens also fails any criteria for an access tunnel into the sewer - as it’s not big enough.

David Wardle of the Environment Agency spoke for the scheme next. He told us that 32 million tonnes of untreated sewage is slushed into the River Thames each year. He graphically explained what is contained in this material and how, due to tidal conditions, this pollution then sloshes up and down the length of the river for up to two years before it is eventually flushed out into the North Sea. The Stamford Brook sewer (near the Dove pub) is one of the entrance spots where this material flows into the river.

Richard Aylard said that if the Thames Tideway Tunnel goes ahead, then the Stamford Brook sewer would be required to be sunk so that the sewage pours into the new tunnel and not the river. He added that this would take up to two years to complete and that the works wouldn't begin until the middle of the next decade.

Andrew Whetnall was then called to set out the case against the Thames Tideway Tunnel. I was told that he is an amateur enthusiast representing a consumer group. He said that he thought there were “minimal health benefits” to cleaning the river and that they would largely only aid a small number of rowers. Mr. Raj Bhatia, the Chair of the Stamford Brook Residents Association in the north of the borough, also explained his concerns.

We moved onto questions. A gently spoken man was the first person called. He politely told Cllr. Stephen Greenhalgh (Con), the Leader of the Council, that he had found the meeting to be very informative but asked him why he and the Council had put out so much information that had “evidently been widely misleading?” Audience members later told me that they thought this was the moment Greenhalgh lost the confidence of the room. His body language indicated he thought he'd been found out. Greenhalgh shuffled and looked around, like a boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar, eventually telling the gentleman that he “wasn’t there to talk but wanted to listen”. Cllr. Greenhalgh then tried to walk away from the podium but someone in the audience shouted out “answer the question!” Greenhalgh returned looking flustered but didn’t respond to the demand and simply repeated his keenness to hear the views of the public and slipped back to his seat.

Two thirds of “the public” who were called to ask questions by the Tory Chair were in fact Tory party members, councillors or candidates. The Conservative Party Parliamentary Candidate for Hammersmith was called early on. He told Thames Water’s Head of Civil Engineering that he too "is an engineer as he has a degree in the subject" (although his website says that he passed his degree in Computer Aided Technology) and asked whether the Thames Tunnel wasn’t simply an opportunity for “boys to play with big toys?”. Other questions followed, some very good, but many in a similar vein and the Chair brought the meeting to a close with two further speeches; one from Cllr. Greenhalgh and one from another Tory Councillor.

All in all, most of the audience I spoke with afterwards told me that they thought it was useful to be able hear and then question Thames Water about their plans. Nearly everyone I spoke with expressed concern that their Council had seemingly tried to hoodwink them over this issue. You can view the local journalist, Rebecca Kent’s take on things in an article in this week’s Gazette newspaper – which I have attached and you can click on to read.

Thames Water confirmed early on that there will not be any works in Ravenscourt Park. I am relieved that there has also turned out to be no truth in what H&F Council told us about major works in Furnival Gardens either but concerned to find out what Thames Water will still need to do to realigned Stamford Brook. I have therefore written to them to seek further information on this and what this would mean to my constituents. I will report back when I have that information but please email me here if you want to raise any matters with me about this and I will do all I can to help.

H&F Council’s ‘Super Sewer’ Shenanigans, Part One – Ravenscourt Park

My fellow ward councillors, and I met with Thames Water recently to question them about the ‘Super Sewer’. Prior to that though, H&F Council’s Conservative Administration had done its best to stop the Opposition from getting a direct and independent briefing from the company itself – as you can see by clicking onto the attached email to an officer in the Opposition office.

It’s worth asking what could possibly be the reason that H&F’s Conservatives wanted to manage the information that Opposition councillors had access to? Well, it seems H&F Council’s propaganda machine and the local Tories have indulged in a considerable amount of scaremongering. For example, Ravenscourt Park fails most of the criteria for the much talked about bore hole or indeed any ‘Super Sewer’ works whatsoever but the Tories, who will have known this, still set that story running causing concern to many local residents.

I will write a detailed report on what the situation is and how we’re campaigning to stop even the possibility of works in any of our riverside green spaces, after the public meeting on the matter tonight. However, for now it is worth noting that:

• no H&F Council officer had been allowed to brief the elected Opposition councillors for the area on the 'Super Sewer' before printing a hyped-up story about it in the Council’s propaganda sheet
• the first the Opposition heard about the alleged boring in Furnival Gardens was when it was published in the Council's newspaper
• when we asked H&F Council officials what the ‘Super Sewer’ story had been based on we were told that it had been "speculation"

I believe most local residents would expect politicians of all parties to unite to fight against any plans to dig up any of Hammersmith and Fulham’s local parks. But, given the above points and the tone of H&F Council’s propaganda on this it looks like our local Conservatives are more interested in using council tax payers’ money to run a closely coordinated and dishonest political campaign off the back of this issue, rather than defending residents’ interests.


Prior to the last local elections I led the cross-party negotiating team against Thames Water representing all of London’s thirty three boroughs. We secured millions of pounds from Thames Water to compensate for cuts in water pressure. Our success was because we put party politics to one side and got on with the job of representing Londoners against Thames Water’s commercial interest. That is what should happen in this instance.


If you want to attend the public meeting about the 'Super Sewer' then please come along tonight (Monday, 17th November) to Hammersmith Town Hall for 7.00pm.

Please feel free to email me here to let me know your views on this issue. I will report more later on this week.

H&F Council Fails Primary School Inspection And So Misses Out On £1.75 Billion Refurbishment Programme

The BBC is reporting that H&F Council has failed a competence test and missed out on a multi-million pound refurbishment programme for local primary schools. The Beeb explained that H&F “did not satisfy the DCSF with their building and refurbishment plans and will not receive their allocation of the £1.75bn immediately".

H&F Council’s Conservative Administration had already been telling local parents that the money was on its way and so this news will dash local parents hopes. As usual, H&F Council’s press office fails to make any mention of this bad news or the reasons why the Council failed local children and parents by not being up to competency standards. But, you can read the BBC article here.

This news comes after two and a half years in which H&F’s Conservative Administration has publicly lost the confidence of local parents and been criticised by its own advisers. The Conservative run council set up a schools commission, chaired by a Tory Peer, as a face-saving exercise after it failed in its bid to close a high performing secondary school and sell off the land. However, the Commission lambasted the Administration setting out its failing and explaining why it had “lost the confidence of head teachers and parents”. Around that time, it looked like the Conservatives had realised that they were damaging local children’s chances when, on 27th June 2007, Cllr, Stephen Greenhalgh (Con), the Leader of H&F Council admitted that his Administration “had made mistakes”. But, he and his colleagues then carried on with their plans to close more local schools, selling off the land to private establishments and being accused by local parents of undermining their children’s secondary education. Then, earlier this year a leading head teacher took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the Administration telling the press that “politics has overridden the value of education” in Hammersmith and Fulham.

It will be interesting to see how H&F Council responds to this latest debacle. If the Administration follows its previous form then it will simply use its propaganda machine to deny there is any problem whatsoever. Nobody will be sacked and nobody will resign. I will report more on this as we continue to push the Council to act in the interest of all of the borough's children.

H&F Council Targets Small Businesses In Money Making Scam

There seems to be an attempt by H&F Council to ramp up the cash it generates from small and medium sized businesses. The Trojan Horse for this is commercial waste legislation that was introduced in the early 1990s.

Over the last year I have been contacted by many small businesses who all tell a similar tale. First, they get a letter from H&F Council demanding to see their Waste Transfer Papers for the last six months. Then, when the small business owner contacts the Council to ask what this is all about, they are handed a £180 fine. I've been a councillor for eleven years and I've never come across this before.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of people disposing of their waste responsibly and acting within the law. But, even those businesses that are getting rid of their waste properly are still fined because the Council says they must have their papers. Given the fact that most small businesses usually don’t have access to advice on these matters then I would have thought the onus was on the Council to let people know of their requirements.

H&F Council has failed to sufficiently alert business owners of the need for these papers. I suspect the reason for this is that some Council official decided that it is easier to follow this path to extra cash than to deliver genuine efficiencies in their department. The Conservative Administration isn’t known for their attention to detail but as they have been copied in my emails on this and refrained from action, I can only conclude that they are just pleased to see the incoming revenue.

Considering the current global economic uncertainty then this is all highly irresponsible but add in that last year both the Council’s political parties voted to agree what is written below, then it makes the Conservative Administration look like incompetent hypocrites at best:

"This Council notes the publication of an independent Commission on Retail Conservation set up by Kensington & Chelsea Council and the recent submission to the Council by the Fulham Society of "Renaissance in Fulham". As a result of increasing concern at the disappearance of independent retailers, this Council resolves to study these two reports and further consider ways in which to support shops and the local economy in Hammersmith & Fulham.”

Westfield Seemingly Unconcerned After Years Of Blighting Neighbours' Lives

Westfield plans to open its Shepherds Bush shopping mall at the end of this month. But, what has it done to protect and make amends to residents who have had to live next to the hellish building works throughout the years of construction? On Monday, I met with three Westfield executives to discuss the wide array of problems residents of Wood Lane had suffered - much of it going on through the night.

Theresa Boyd, who is a local resident, also attended. She told me she wanted a chance to tell Westfield what they had put her through. Theresa told them how the dust that was pumped into her home covered everything and caused electrical equipment to fail. We showed Westfield photos of clouds of dust blowing from their site to where Theresa lives and they admitted that the dust could and should have been dampened down and stopped. Theresa explained how huge spotlights glare through her windows into the small hours, how heavy plant is delivered at all hours and how very loud machines and works run late on into the night. Listening to Theresa I was concerned to learn many of these examples had occurred as recently as last Saturday and Sunday nights. Oddly, the Westfield execs hardly brimmed with empathy and it was my impression that they actually found listening to Theresa’s complaints to be really quite tiresome.

I asked Westfield if H&F Council had sanctioned the late night works – which would be highly irregular. Westfield told me the Council's position was that they "hadn't said they couldn't do this" and went on to tell me that the Council was aware that Westfield planned to open the new shopping centre in two week’s time and so were "supportive of the need for these late night works".

I wrote to a senior council officer to find out whether H&F Council is indeed turning a blind eye to these problems experienced by residents. I received a response saying there will be an “urgent officer inspection” to stop late night works and “to correct Westfield's apparent comment, the position is that we have told them that they must not allow any work outside normal hours which gives rise to noise disturbing residential neighbours. We have indicated that we will tolerate quiet out-of-hours work but will react swiftly to any complaints about noise which is harmful to residents, as we always would.”

Westfield is a multi-billion pound business. It’s owned by the second wealthiest person in Australia. It will spend vast sums on opening parties, public relations, advertising and promoting its image. Given all this, I think they should make amends to those who have been immediately affected by the building works – which has been the biggest in London. It would be the act of a good neighbour but, as yet, it doesn’t seem to be one of their priorities.

More Tax Payers' Cash Spent On Tories' Inflation-Busting Salary Hikes

Many H&F residents will not know that the bloke in the photo is Mr. Kit Malthouse AM (Con), our recently elected representative in the London Assembly. More will be surprised to find out that he is taking a lead from our very own Conservative Council Leader here in Hammersmith and Fulham and has received an inflation-busting salary hike from the public purse.

The Tory Troll is reporting that Mr. Malthouse will now take a £55,000 allowance from the Metropolitan Police Authority. This is a political position that was given to him by Mayor Boris Johnson, who seems happy for him to also be rewarded with a jaw-dropping 44% increase in the renumeration that goes with the role. Mr. Malthouse's MPA pay is on top of his £53,543 joint Deputy Mayor and Assembly Member salary - all of the money coming from our pockets as both roles are completely funded out of our taxes. You can read the full story by clicking here.

Readers will recall that H&F's Tory councillors gave themselves an 18% salary rise in their very first budget after winning the 2006 local elections. They then made the pages of Private Eye's Rotten Borough's section for giving one of their Conservative councillors the equivalent of a 75% salary rise. Then, the Tory Leader of H&F Council secretly gave himself a 14% salary hike in a rather peculiar and underhand way.

I think it's all very odd how the Conservative's plans to use tax payers' money to give themselves salary rises, increased by percentages that most people can only dream about, aren't openly published for all to see in their pre-election literature. It leaves me to wonder if they thought this was all something they had to hide?

Channel 4 Looks At Cameron's Money Men

David Cameron won't have been pleased by the latest broadcast of Channel 4's Dispatches. It examines where he's getting his money from with some worrying conclusions. If you missed it, you can view the episode by clicking here.

Letter To The Daily Telegraph

Here's my letter to the Daily Telegraph after a rather misleading article appeared in it written by Cllr. Stephen Greenhalgh (Con), the Leader of H&F Council:

"Dear Editor

What would the press say about a national politician who tried to persuade the public that their tax had been cut by £350 when the annual bill had only really only been cut by £20.74 in the last year? I suspect their reputation for honesty or knowing what they are talking about would take a bashing. So why is local government different?

On 28th September, Cllr. Stephen Greenhalgh (Con), the Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council made exactly that claim about Council tax in your newspaper. But, any study of H&F Council’s budget papers will show that it is blatantly not true - as you can see here on page 37. In fact, in 2006 Cllr. Greenhalgh inherited a budget from the last Labour Administration that would have seen some of the biggest Council tax reductions in the country - with real terms cuts in council tax each and every year up until 2009.

Greenhalgh’s boast about the Tory’s record on crime fighting barely stands up to scrutiny. In 2006 the Conservative’s took over from an Administration that had delivered the biggest fall in crime in London. But, Metropolitan Police figures for the last municipal year now show that H&F languishes behind Lambeth, Waltham Forest, Islington, Richmond and others after cutting Council funding to the ward with the highest rates of crime.

Residents don’t agree that services have improved either. Complaints are up about street cleaning and dog fouling. The Tories introduced a new £7.25 charge for removing garden waste – a service they themselves admitted was “chaotic” after a public outcry. In fact, the Conservatives have introduced over 570 inflation-busting charges on a range of Council services, with parking charges up 12.5%; meals on wheels charges are up 40%, there is a completely new £12.40 per hour fee for home care for local elderly, sick and disabled residents and children’s out-of-hours play services charges increase by a staggering 121%.

Youth centres, schools and homeless hostels have all been sold off as part of a new asset reduction strategy. Affordable housing is cut back on each new development and front line services such as highways maintenance, libraries, youth services and educational grants have all been slashed.

Greenhalgh’s self-proclaimed mission to create the "Borough of Opportunity" rings hollow when you consider all of the above. In fact, after awarding himself a 14% salary rise at the last budget meeting and admitting that his senior colleague had flown to the south of France to meet property developers so they could release “contentious development sites”, then it’s fair to ask who exactly is his “borough of opportunity” for?

I urge the national press to take a long hard look at local government. With Mr. Cameron making Stephen Greenhalgh head of his local government Innovation Unit it seems that Cameron may well take Greenhalgh’s advice and see Hammersmith and Fulham as a model for a possible future Tory Government. If this is the case, then it is hard to see how Cameron’s claims that the Tories have changed really stacks up.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Stephen Cowan
Leader of the Opposition
The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham"

Across The Pond And, Once More, "It's The Economy, Stupid"

On the 28th October 1980, Ronald Reagan struck a nerve when, during the only presidential debate of that election, he asked Americans: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" The US had gone through a recession and so the answer for many was a heartfelt “no”. It helped propel Reagan to victory.

Now, after nearly eight years of the Republican's woefully incompetent handling of the US economy, Barack Obama is essentially asking America that same question. The facts speak for themselves: the average, typical American family is actually $2000 worse off than they were eight years earlier; petrol prices have trebled; healthcare charges are up; the banking system is in crisis; homes are being repossessed across the country; the national debt has spiralled; over 5.5million Americans have been driven into poverty; unemployment is at its highest rate in five years and America has experienced the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s.

The voting public are concerned. Polls show that the economy is, by far, the number one issue for voters in this election with national security coming a distant second. In particular the economy is a worry for target 'blue collar', 'middle class' voters – key in so many swing states.

McCain’s economic policies mirror Bush and barely stand up to scrutiny. His proposed measures to alleviate the current burdens on American households fall well short of public hopes. For example, McCain promises to double existing child exemption to $7,000 but only a small proportion of Americans would qualify for that scheme. McCain says he will provide a credit to buy health insurance but those workers who already have employer provided health insurance will find the benefits of that scheme offset by a proposed new tax on their employer funded health programme.

Barack Obama has gone much further than his Republican rival. The Democrats would prioritise the provision of new jobs – many in the green energy sector and pledge to get the economy back on track. They promise to improve life for “ordinary Americans” committing to a $500 tax cut for the average worker; senior citizens earning less than $50,000 will cease to pay income tax and there will be lower health insurance cost for all Americans - with a subsidy for those who don’t currently have coverage. An Obama Administration will introduce a $4,000 collage tuition subsidy for students who agree to undertake community service; it will provide mortgage interest credit (valued at $500 for home owners who don’t itemise their tax deduction) and introduce a child tax credit (that could save $1,100 for a single parent of two dependant children who earns $40,000 or less).

So, can McCain prevail without offering more to those being hurt by America’s current economic woes? For the moment, his campaign thinks it can. McCain’s record as a war hero is being used to make a direct pitch to blue collar swing voters on national security issues and the Republicans are urging the US public to believe that both McCain and Palin are "mavericks" that will “change" Washington. Meanwhile, by claiming Barack Obama is an inexperienced "tax and spend liberal" they hope to scare voters into thinking that he’s not in tune with America’s traditional cultural values – a customary claim Republicans make about Democrats. In fact, this week, in fourteen key states (five of them states that voted Democrat in the 2004 presidential election) the Republicans launched an ad with the slogan “ready to tax, ready to spend, but not ready to lead.”.

Following the two conventions, polls show that the race for the White House is currently tied. Yesterday’s Rasmussen daily Presidential Tracking Poll puts Barack Obama and John McCain each on 46% of the vote. When 'leaners' are included, it’s Barack Obama 48% and John McCain 48%.

But, the fact remains that McCain cannot shy away from voters’ concerns on the economy; or that his economic platform broadly shadows that of the deeply unpopular Bush Administration; or that he seems out of touch with voters concerns (commenting recently that he thinks the US economy is “fundamentally strong”); or, indeed, that 84% of Americans think their country is "going in the wrong direction" and that, during the last eight years, McCain has voted for Bush to take the US in its current direction over 90% of the time.

So, as the sign said in Bill Clinton’s War Room during the 1992 election, “It’s the Economy Stupid”. In this election, it’s the solutions Barack Obama proposes that are set to dominate that issue.

Proposed New Development For Glenthorne Road, Hammersmith

Linden London have submitted a planning application for 63-75 Glenthorne Road, W6. They hope to build 67 one, two and three beds apartments on the central Hammersmith site. The proposals also include provision for fifteen new car parking spaces. You can click onto the attached revised plans and the Architect's mocked up photos to enlarge them.

The Cambridge Grove and Leamore Street Residents Association have raised a number of concerns about the proposals and are keen that Linden London develops the site in such a way as to not cause extra traffic or noise nuisance to the already congested area. They’ve been supported by the Brackenbury Residents Association, the Hammersmith Society, and the Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group. My fellow ward councillors and I have been working with them on this matter and met with the developer earlier this year to hear of their plans.

I will write more when I know what date this application will to go to the Planning Committee. Meanwhile, please let me know your views on this development and email me by clicking here if you would like me to send you a PDF copy of Linden London’s brochure for the site.

Boris Johnson Unvails Above Inflation Travel Fare Hikes

The Tory Troll is reporting that Boris Johnson will today announce above inflation hikes on bus and tube fares. You can read the full story here.

Figures released to the GLA’s Budget and Performance Committee show that the cancellation of the Venezuelan 'oil deal' and the scrapping the higher Congestion Charge has left over a £100million hole in the budget. Boris is hoping to make up the difference by passing the charge onto Londoners.

News of these increases are contrary to Boris' pre-election pledge not to raise fares which will come as a blow to commuters across the capital.

Hammersmith Grove Armadillo Halted – For Now?

Work on the notorious Hammersmith Grove “Armadillo” has ground to a halt because the developer has allegedly been unable to obtain bank financing for the scheme.

Building magazine told how Development Securities had unsuccessfully been attempting to refinance the project at a time when they reported a £14.4m loss for the past six months. Development Securities released a statement saying that while it had assembled long-term equity partners willing to finance the transaction, the “lack of any currently available bank finance for the development stage left our original equity co-investors unable to proceed with the project as originally planned”.

The Armadillo became a highly controversial local issue when residents raised concerns that their needs were being put behind those of the developer. H&F’s ruling Conservative Administration then put out a statement denying that they had met Development Securities to negotiate around its plans only to then have this proved untrue by evidence provided following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. On the 18th September 2007, Cllr. Mark Loveday (Con) wrote on a local website that “Like anyone else, they [Development Securities] don't have to consult with the Council or the public before submitting a planning application, and they didn't. The Council was presented with their proposals without any real advance notice. Perhaps had they spoken to us first, we would have told them what would and would not work.” However, the FOI evidence actually showed that Conservative councillors and council officials had met secretly with Development Securities on over 17 separate occasions, which is almost twice a month, to discuss their proposals for the Hammersmith Grove Armadillo. The first meeting took place on 15th November 2006 some ten months prior to Cllr. Loveday’s written statement. This led many local people to believe that the development was a "done deal" and over one hundred and seventy residents raised a wide variety of their concerns with H&F council officials and the developer at a public meeting on 25th October 2007. Unconvinced by what they heard, a further two hundred an fifty residents then turned out on 30th October 2007 to protest against the scheme when it was being considered by the Planning Applications Committee . Following that meeting, many residents told me that they were bitterly disappointed when H&F’s Conservative Councillors used their majority to grant planning permission. The planning committee was chaired by Ravenscourt Park Councillor Lucy Ivimy (Con).

It now seems that the construction of the Armadillo has been slowed down rather than stopped. Development Securities said in their statement that “Constructive discussions are now taking place in order that the development can proceed without the need for banking finance”. You can read Building magazine’s full story by clicking here.