Swindon AdvertiserResidents in uproar over sewage tanks (From Swindon Advertiser)

Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us

Residents in uproar over sewage tanks

Swindon Advertiser: Marie Percival who is angry with the building of sewage tanks near her home Marie Percival who is angry with the building of sewage tanks near her home

RESIDENTS and councillors are angry that Thames Water has begun work on installing two sewage tanks at each end of Queen Elizabeth Drive in Taw Hill.

They have accused the water company of by-passing planning laws and putting people’s safety at risk.

Thames Water says precautions have been taken but because formal planning permission has not been needed there are no formal conditions on the work.

This problem was highlighted on the first day of works when contractors arrived at 7am, closed off a footpath, and blocked off pavements, forcing pedestrians to cross the road on a blind bend.

“If this had gone through the formal planning process as we were promised in the beginning then there would have been conditions to stop this,” said chartered surveyor Marie Percival, who lives nearby.

“They would have only been able work between 8am and 4pm, whereas now they can work Saturdays as well if they want.

“It’s only going to get worse as well when the real work starts. They are digging a hole the volume of five double-decker buses here and twice the size at the other end. There isn’t the turning distance for trucks which will be needed and I have no idea where they will park when they are waiting.

“A public footpath, running through the green area which is going to be destroyed, has been closed without permission.”

The aim of the tanks is to expand the capacity of the sewage network and reduce flood risk in the area but residents believe it will in fact create a problem.

When the proposals were first put to residents they were promised the firm would apply for planning permission on each site at either end of Queen Elizabeth Drive.

However, it was met with fierce opposition so the water firm said it would look at other options. But the revised plans resolved to build most things underground, thereby avoiding the need for planning permission.

Coun Emma Faramarzi (Con, Priory Vale) was equally critical of the water company for the way it had treated residents.

She said: “I have to say I am really disappointed in Thames Water. They called it a consultation process but it was more like telling us what was going to happen.

“My concern is for the children at St Francis School. Some of the older ones of live close by walk home by themselves and with the work means they may have to walk along the road. All it takes is for one of them not to be concentrating and there could so easily be an accident. The frustrating thing is they have a statutory right so there is very little we can do.

“Once they knew we were going to take it to planning committee they seemed to change their plan.”

The first part of the work has seen polythene sheeting put around the site to protect newts in a neighbouring pond, which residents also say will be at risk if the tanks ever overflow.

A Thames Water spokesman said: “The set-up of our site has been done in a way to keep our team safe and also to keep local people at a safe distance from our work.”

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:39am Wed 19 Mar 14

Oik1 says...

"Coun Emma Faramarzi (Con, Priory Vale) was equally critical of the water company for the way it had treated residents.

She said: “I have to say I am really disappointed in Thames Water. They called it a consultation process but it was more like telling us what was going to happen."

Yes, that's exactly whats happening, you and the local Nimbys kicked up such a stink about the sewage tanks, Thames Water took the easier option to totaly ignore the lot of you and get on with the work, there was never going to be any compromise from certain local residents, so instead of getting bogged down forever and a day in pointless planning meetings etc Thames Water have just changed the way the work was done thus avoiding anymore holdups and now the locals will have to suffer whatever comes their way via the works, instead of doing all they could to stop the project they should of tried to get the best deal they could from it, no matter what happened those tanks were going in.
"Coun Emma Faramarzi (Con, Priory Vale) was equally critical of the water company for the way it had treated residents. She said: “I have to say I am really disappointed in Thames Water. They called it a consultation process but it was more like telling us what was going to happen." Yes, that's exactly whats happening, you and the local Nimbys kicked up such a stink about the sewage tanks, Thames Water took the easier option to totaly ignore the lot of you and get on with the work, there was never going to be any compromise from certain local residents, so instead of getting bogged down forever and a day in pointless planning meetings etc Thames Water have just changed the way the work was done thus avoiding anymore holdups and now the locals will have to suffer whatever comes their way via the works, instead of doing all they could to stop the project they should of tried to get the best deal they could from it, no matter what happened those tanks were going in. Oik1
  • Score: 30

7:20am Wed 19 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Oik1 wrote:
"Coun Emma Faramarzi (Con, Priory Vale) was equally critical of the water company for the way it had treated residents.

She said: “I have to say I am really disappointed in Thames Water. They called it a consultation process but it was more like telling us what was going to happen."

Yes, that's exactly whats happening, you and the local Nimbys kicked up such a stink about the sewage tanks, Thames Water took the easier option to totaly ignore the lot of you and get on with the work, there was never going to be any compromise from certain local residents, so instead of getting bogged down forever and a day in pointless planning meetings etc Thames Water have just changed the way the work was done thus avoiding anymore holdups and now the locals will have to suffer whatever comes their way via the works, instead of doing all they could to stop the project they should of tried to get the best deal they could from it, no matter what happened those tanks were going in.
Further to that, how hypocritical of Faramaizi, that's exactly how Swindon council treat their ratepayers, so she has nothing to moan about.
[quote][p][bold]Oik1[/bold] wrote: "Coun Emma Faramarzi (Con, Priory Vale) was equally critical of the water company for the way it had treated residents. She said: “I have to say I am really disappointed in Thames Water. They called it a consultation process but it was more like telling us what was going to happen." Yes, that's exactly whats happening, you and the local Nimbys kicked up such a stink about the sewage tanks, Thames Water took the easier option to totaly ignore the lot of you and get on with the work, there was never going to be any compromise from certain local residents, so instead of getting bogged down forever and a day in pointless planning meetings etc Thames Water have just changed the way the work was done thus avoiding anymore holdups and now the locals will have to suffer whatever comes their way via the works, instead of doing all they could to stop the project they should of tried to get the best deal they could from it, no matter what happened those tanks were going in.[/p][/quote]Further to that, how hypocritical of Faramaizi, that's exactly how Swindon council treat their ratepayers, so she has nothing to moan about. Always Grumpy
  • Score: -1

7:31am Wed 19 Mar 14

Haydonender says...

Can't believe how much publicity the adver gives Nimbys like this. I live in the area and it's not a blind bend and there is a footpath on the other side of the road. This article may as well read 'one local resident would rather risk flooding than have to cross the road for a couple of weeks'.

Pathetic, and if it hadn't been done and our homes flooded, they would be the first to slate Thames water for not doing anything about it.
Can't believe how much publicity the adver gives Nimbys like this. I live in the area and it's not a blind bend and there is a footpath on the other side of the road. This article may as well read 'one local resident would rather risk flooding than have to cross the road for a couple of weeks'. Pathetic, and if it hadn't been done and our homes flooded, they would be the first to slate Thames water for not doing anything about it. Haydonender
  • Score: 29

7:44am Wed 19 Mar 14

stfcdod says...

Haven't we heard enough from these whinging nimby's already?
Haven't we heard enough from these whinging nimby's already? stfcdod
  • Score: 20

9:55am Wed 19 Mar 14

Still About says...

Further to that, how hypocritical of Faramaizi, that's exactly how Swindon council treat their ratepayers, so she has nothing to moan about.

Exactly.
Now they know exactly how all Swindon resident feel
[quote]Further to that, how hypocritical of Faramaizi, that's exactly how Swindon council treat their ratepayers, so she has nothing to moan about.[/quote] Exactly. Now they know exactly how all Swindon resident feel Still About
  • Score: -4

10:26am Wed 19 Mar 14

Chris* says...

It is a public open space, there is no public footpath through the park. The works have been done under streetworks notice so all necessary consents are in place. It is interesting how comments like this are just put in by the Advertiser without asking for an alternative view by people in the know i.e. the traffic officers at the council.
It is a public open space, there is no public footpath through the park. The works have been done under streetworks notice so all necessary consents are in place. It is interesting how comments like this are just put in by the Advertiser without asking for an alternative view by people in the know i.e. the traffic officers at the council. Chris*
  • Score: 13

12:20pm Wed 19 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Oik1 wrote:
"Coun Emma Faramarzi (Con, Priory Vale) was equally critical of the water company for the way it had treated residents.

She said: “I have to say I am really disappointed in Thames Water. They called it a consultation process but it was more like telling us what was going to happen."

Yes, that's exactly whats happening, you and the local Nimbys kicked up such a stink about the sewage tanks, Thames Water took the easier option to totaly ignore the lot of you and get on with the work, there was never going to be any compromise from certain local residents, so instead of getting bogged down forever and a day in pointless planning meetings etc Thames Water have just changed the way the work was done thus avoiding anymore holdups and now the locals will have to suffer whatever comes their way via the works, instead of doing all they could to stop the project they should of tried to get the best deal they could from it, no matter what happened those tanks were going in.
Further to that, how hypocritical of Faramaizi, that's exactly how Swindon council treat their ratepayers, so she has nothing to moan about.
Gets her face in the paper though and that's all councillors care about, their own ego's
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oik1[/bold] wrote: "Coun Emma Faramarzi (Con, Priory Vale) was equally critical of the water company for the way it had treated residents. She said: “I have to say I am really disappointed in Thames Water. They called it a consultation process but it was more like telling us what was going to happen." Yes, that's exactly whats happening, you and the local Nimbys kicked up such a stink about the sewage tanks, Thames Water took the easier option to totaly ignore the lot of you and get on with the work, there was never going to be any compromise from certain local residents, so instead of getting bogged down forever and a day in pointless planning meetings etc Thames Water have just changed the way the work was done thus avoiding anymore holdups and now the locals will have to suffer whatever comes their way via the works, instead of doing all they could to stop the project they should of tried to get the best deal they could from it, no matter what happened those tanks were going in.[/p][/quote]Further to that, how hypocritical of Faramaizi, that's exactly how Swindon council treat their ratepayers, so she has nothing to moan about.[/p][/quote]Gets her face in the paper though and that's all councillors care about, their own ego's house on the hill
  • Score: -7

12:25pm Wed 19 Mar 14

HeavyRain says...

"The aim of the tanks is to expand the capacity of the sewage network and reduce flood risk in the area but residents believe it will in fact create a problem."

That 'fact' being that it will increase the risk of flooding? Or cause some temporary inconvenience? Or something else?
"The aim of the tanks is to expand the capacity of the sewage network and reduce flood risk in the area but residents believe it will in fact create a problem." That 'fact' being that it will increase the risk of flooding? Or cause some temporary inconvenience? Or something else? HeavyRain
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Wed 19 Mar 14

V4CSOI says...

It is amazing how articles such as this always bring out tired and unfounded accusations of 'nimbyism' made by people who clearly are not in possession of the full facts.

Nobody is saying that the tanks are not necessary! Nobody is suggesting that the tanks should be moved near to other peoples houses so that it is somebody else's back yard.

What local residents are saying is that Thames Water have simply chosen the easiest and cheapest option for them and have failed to look at other sites which will mean that, if the tanks do smell or flood ( and they already have elsewhere in the Country and Thames Water have admitted that there is a potential for them to do so again) then they will do so in a position where nobody is inconvenienced and no houses are at risk. If such viable sites exist, and the facts point to that being the case, then simple common sense indicates that the tanks should be being put there rather than at the location presently chosen by Thames Water. If no such viable alternative exists then the tanks may have to go where Thames Water want them to go and the QED residents will have to accept it - but why are Taw Hill residents nimbys just because they stand up for themselves and want to ensure that other options, which will inconvenience nobody, are properly explored?

The planning process is there for a purpose. It is party of the democratic process of this country. If sufficient time had been available, planning law could feasibly have provided a way that Swindon Borough Council could have required Thames Water to go through the planning process before in started work. That process could have fully examined the suitability of the location of the tanks and the risks of placing them at their present location. The planning porcess would have ensured that all necessary pavement closures, working imes and other matters were agreed in advance. Thames Water have managed to frustrate and side step all that because they gave insuffcient notice of the proposed development. Residents were only informed (not consulted) late last yesr and work was originally scheduled to commence well before the end of 2013. Thames Water actually chose their current sites sometime befoe Summer 2012.

If your happy with multinational companies acting in a way which effectively frustrates the planning process and side stepping planning law provisions, then please continue calling people nimbys without any form of justification whatsover and you will play right into their hands.

In the alternative, you might like to examine what is actually going on a little deeper and you may realise that next time it could be you having your rights to access to due process frustrated - you will certainly want people on your side then.
It is amazing how articles such as this always bring out tired and unfounded accusations of 'nimbyism' made by people who clearly are not in possession of the full facts. Nobody is saying that the tanks are not necessary! Nobody is suggesting that the tanks should be moved near to other peoples houses so that it is somebody else's back yard. What local residents are saying is that Thames Water have simply chosen the easiest and cheapest option for them and have failed to look at other sites which will mean that, if the tanks do smell or flood ( and they already have elsewhere in the Country and Thames Water have admitted that there is a potential for them to do so again) then they will do so in a position where nobody is inconvenienced and no houses are at risk. If such viable sites exist, and the facts point to that being the case, then simple common sense indicates that the tanks should be being put there rather than at the location presently chosen by Thames Water. If no such viable alternative exists then the tanks may have to go where Thames Water want them to go and the QED residents will have to accept it - but why are Taw Hill residents nimbys just because they stand up for themselves and want to ensure that other options, which will inconvenience nobody, are properly explored? The planning process is there for a purpose. It is party of the democratic process of this country. If sufficient time had been available, planning law could feasibly have provided a way that Swindon Borough Council could have required Thames Water to go through the planning process before in started work. That process could have fully examined the suitability of the location of the tanks and the risks of placing them at their present location. The planning porcess would have ensured that all necessary pavement closures, working imes and other matters were agreed in advance. Thames Water have managed to frustrate and side step all that because they gave insuffcient notice of the proposed development. Residents were only informed (not consulted) late last yesr and work was originally scheduled to commence well before the end of 2013. Thames Water actually chose their current sites sometime befoe Summer 2012. If your happy with multinational companies acting in a way which effectively frustrates the planning process and side stepping planning law provisions, then please continue calling people nimbys without any form of justification whatsover and you will play right into their hands. In the alternative, you might like to examine what is actually going on a little deeper and you may realise that next time it could be you having your rights to access to due process frustrated - you will certainly want people on your side then. V4CSOI
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Forgive my ignorance but this work will benefit the area?
prevent future problems?
Forgive my ignorance but this work will benefit the area? prevent future problems? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 4

8:21pm Wed 19 Mar 14

V4CSOI says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Forgive my ignorance but this work will benefit the area?
prevent future problems?
Yes it will. But the same result could have been achieved without any risk of potential nusiance to houses by flooding, noise or smell if the tanks were sited to the West of Thamesdown Drive. This would also have avoided construction problems in the middle of an establish estate.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Forgive my ignorance but this work will benefit the area? prevent future problems?[/p][/quote]Yes it will. But the same result could have been achieved without any risk of potential nusiance to houses by flooding, noise or smell if the tanks were sited to the West of Thamesdown Drive. This would also have avoided construction problems in the middle of an establish estate. V4CSOI
  • Score: -1

11:37pm Wed 19 Mar 14

madreeves says...

I remember the massive traffic inconveniences when they were building Abbey Meads in the first place. That went on for ages. Trying to get from West Swindon to Cricklade in the morning was horrendous. However, those that now live in Abbey Meads wouldn't appreciate that, would they?
I remember the massive traffic inconveniences when they were building Abbey Meads in the first place. That went on for ages. Trying to get from West Swindon to Cricklade in the morning was horrendous. However, those that now live in Abbey Meads wouldn't appreciate that, would they? madreeves
  • Score: 0

8:11am Thu 20 Mar 14

V4CSOI says...

madreeves wrote:
I remember the massive traffic inconveniences when they were building Abbey Meads in the first place. That went on for ages. Trying to get from West Swindon to Cricklade in the morning was horrendous. However, those that now live in Abbey Meads wouldn't appreciate that, would they?
If there had been an alternative way of doing the work in Abbey Meads which would have removed your inconvenience. If that method had not been taken up because the developers just wanted to do it their way because it was more convenient for them. If you had had your chance to oppose this at planning frustrated. Then you would have been in the same position as the residents of Taw Hill today and would have had a justifiable grievance and my support. Or are you simply saying that because you suffered we should just humby accept our lot?
[quote][p][bold]madreeves[/bold] wrote: I remember the massive traffic inconveniences when they were building Abbey Meads in the first place. That went on for ages. Trying to get from West Swindon to Cricklade in the morning was horrendous. However, those that now live in Abbey Meads wouldn't appreciate that, would they?[/p][/quote]If there had been an alternative way of doing the work in Abbey Meads which would have removed your inconvenience. If that method had not been taken up because the developers just wanted to do it their way because it was more convenient for them. If you had had your chance to oppose this at planning frustrated. Then you would have been in the same position as the residents of Taw Hill today and would have had a justifiable grievance and my support. Or are you simply saying that because you suffered we should just humby accept our lot? V4CSOI
  • Score: 1

3:01pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

V4CSOI wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Forgive my ignorance but this work will benefit the area?
prevent future problems?
Yes it will. But the same result could have been achieved without any risk of potential nusiance to houses by flooding, noise or smell if the tanks were sited to the West of Thamesdown Drive. This would also have avoided construction problems in the middle of an establish estate.
So if it isnt in your back yard you will be happy?
Short term disruption for long term benefits.....?

Seems like a no brainer to me, how long will work take versus how long the benefits will last......?
This group wants and needs the services these tanks will provide but does not want to aid in the development of their own area...This attitude is exactly whats wrong with the town, country.
[quote][p][bold]V4CSOI[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Forgive my ignorance but this work will benefit the area? prevent future problems?[/p][/quote]Yes it will. But the same result could have been achieved without any risk of potential nusiance to houses by flooding, noise or smell if the tanks were sited to the West of Thamesdown Drive. This would also have avoided construction problems in the middle of an establish estate.[/p][/quote]So if it isnt in your back yard you will be happy? Short term disruption for long term benefits.....? Seems like a no brainer to me, how long will work take versus how long the benefits will last......? This group wants and needs the services these tanks will provide but does not want to aid in the development of their own area...This attitude is exactly whats wrong with the town, country. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Sat 22 Mar 14

V4CSOI says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
V4CSOI wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Forgive my ignorance but this work will benefit the area?
prevent future problems?
Yes it will. But the same result could have been achieved without any risk of potential nusiance to houses by flooding, noise or smell if the tanks were sited to the West of Thamesdown Drive. This would also have avoided construction problems in the middle of an establish estate.
So if it isnt in your back yard you will be happy?
Short term disruption for long term benefits.....?

Seems like a no brainer to me, how long will work take versus how long the benefits will last......?
This group wants and needs the services these tanks will provide but does not want to aid in the development of their own area...This attitude is exactly whats wrong with the town, country.
Potential of the tanks to flood and smell near to houses (admitted by Thames Water) with a viable alternative where that risk will be removed and where they are in nobody's back yard and the development of my area can still continue unaffected . Let me think for a minute - what is the best thing to do? Oh yes - I'll just listen to people who want me to accept whatever I'm given by a mulitnational company interested in maximising its profits and convenience. I think not! . When did standing for common sense ever weaken our Country?
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]V4CSOI[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Forgive my ignorance but this work will benefit the area? prevent future problems?[/p][/quote]Yes it will. But the same result could have been achieved without any risk of potential nusiance to houses by flooding, noise or smell if the tanks were sited to the West of Thamesdown Drive. This would also have avoided construction problems in the middle of an establish estate.[/p][/quote]So if it isnt in your back yard you will be happy? Short term disruption for long term benefits.....? Seems like a no brainer to me, how long will work take versus how long the benefits will last......? This group wants and needs the services these tanks will provide but does not want to aid in the development of their own area...This attitude is exactly whats wrong with the town, country.[/p][/quote]Potential of the tanks to flood and smell near to houses (admitted by Thames Water) with a viable alternative where that risk will be removed and where they are in nobody's back yard and the development of my area can still continue unaffected . Let me think for a minute - what is the best thing to do? Oh yes - I'll just listen to people who want me to accept whatever I'm given by a mulitnational company interested in maximising its profits and convenience. I think not! . When did standing for common sense ever weaken our Country? V4CSOI
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

V4CSOI wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
V4CSOI wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Forgive my ignorance but this work will benefit the area?
prevent future problems?
Yes it will. But the same result could have been achieved without any risk of potential nusiance to houses by flooding, noise or smell if the tanks were sited to the West of Thamesdown Drive. This would also have avoided construction problems in the middle of an establish estate.
So if it isnt in your back yard you will be happy?
Short term disruption for long term benefits.....?

Seems like a no brainer to me, how long will work take versus how long the benefits will last......?
This group wants and needs the services these tanks will provide but does not want to aid in the development of their own area...This attitude is exactly whats wrong with the town, country.
Potential of the tanks to flood and smell near to houses (admitted by Thames Water) with a viable alternative where that risk will be removed and where they are in nobody's back yard and the development of my area can still continue unaffected . Let me think for a minute - what is the best thing to do? Oh yes - I'll just listen to people who want me to accept whatever I'm given by a mulitnational company interested in maximising its profits and convenience. I think not! . When did standing for common sense ever weaken our Country?
They went for the most cost effective and easiest option...isnt that what local councils are supposed to do?

common sense would of had them in built but that isnt the case, what other developments will this be hindering?
Are you asking for current work to cease, tidy up and move to new site?
[quote][p][bold]V4CSOI[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]V4CSOI[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Forgive my ignorance but this work will benefit the area? prevent future problems?[/p][/quote]Yes it will. But the same result could have been achieved without any risk of potential nusiance to houses by flooding, noise or smell if the tanks were sited to the West of Thamesdown Drive. This would also have avoided construction problems in the middle of an establish estate.[/p][/quote]So if it isnt in your back yard you will be happy? Short term disruption for long term benefits.....? Seems like a no brainer to me, how long will work take versus how long the benefits will last......? This group wants and needs the services these tanks will provide but does not want to aid in the development of their own area...This attitude is exactly whats wrong with the town, country.[/p][/quote]Potential of the tanks to flood and smell near to houses (admitted by Thames Water) with a viable alternative where that risk will be removed and where they are in nobody's back yard and the development of my area can still continue unaffected . Let me think for a minute - what is the best thing to do? Oh yes - I'll just listen to people who want me to accept whatever I'm given by a mulitnational company interested in maximising its profits and convenience. I think not! . When did standing for common sense ever weaken our Country?[/p][/quote]They went for the most cost effective and easiest option...isnt that what local councils are supposed to do? common sense would of had them in built but that isnt the case, what other developments will this be hindering? Are you asking for current work to cease, tidy up and move to new site? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Mon 24 Mar 14

V4CSOI says...

Please don't move the goal posts. Common sense has to apply to the facts as they stand now. SBC did not go for the easiest and cheapest option - Thames Water did! The option to the West of Thamesdown Drive would have produced an equally effective solution. No other developments would have been hindered. No housing would have been put at risk. Local Councils are supposed to represent the views of their electorate. Thames Water have managed by their lack of notice to prevent residents from causing the planning committee to fully examine the matter. Had the SBC planning committee done so, it is our view that they may well have refused planning permission for the tanks at their present location. This would have required TW to relocate to the West of Thamesdown Drive where nobody would have been affected. We will never know now because TW have managed to side step planning. You may well be happy with this until such time as you find your access to a legal channel which should be open to you frustrated. Should that ever happen to you, I hope you won't be met by chorus of false allegations from your fellow citizens who appear to have little or know knowledge of the real facts.
Please don't move the goal posts. Common sense has to apply to the facts as they stand now. SBC did not go for the easiest and cheapest option - Thames Water did! The option to the West of Thamesdown Drive would have produced an equally effective solution. No other developments would have been hindered. No housing would have been put at risk. Local Councils are supposed to represent the views of their electorate. Thames Water have managed by their lack of notice to prevent residents from causing the planning committee to fully examine the matter. Had the SBC planning committee done so, it is our view that they may well have refused planning permission for the tanks at their present location. This would have required TW to relocate to the West of Thamesdown Drive where nobody would have been affected. We will never know now because TW have managed to side step planning. You may well be happy with this until such time as you find your access to a legal channel which should be open to you frustrated. Should that ever happen to you, I hope you won't be met by chorus of false allegations from your fellow citizens who appear to have little or know knowledge of the real facts. V4CSOI
  • Score: 1

4:51pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

V4CSOI wrote:
Please don't move the goal posts. Common sense has to apply to the facts as they stand now. SBC did not go for the easiest and cheapest option - Thames Water did! The option to the West of Thamesdown Drive would have produced an equally effective solution. No other developments would have been hindered. No housing would have been put at risk. Local Councils are supposed to represent the views of their electorate. Thames Water have managed by their lack of notice to prevent residents from causing the planning committee to fully examine the matter. Had the SBC planning committee done so, it is our view that they may well have refused planning permission for the tanks at their present location. This would have required TW to relocate to the West of Thamesdown Drive where nobody would have been affected. We will never know now because TW have managed to side step planning. You may well be happy with this until such time as you find your access to a legal channel which should be open to you frustrated. Should that ever happen to you, I hope you won't be met by chorus of false allegations from your fellow citizens who appear to have little or know knowledge of the real facts.
You have used your opinion and only quoted yourself??? This does not make facts.
So you are asking for current work to cease and move on?
Surely this would be a huge cost to fellow citizens causing further harm to the town as a whole.

I appreciate you are upset by this development but hardly feel your passive aggressive attitude is required.
Are you saying that there have been facts left out of the article?
[quote][p][bold]V4CSOI[/bold] wrote: Please don't move the goal posts. Common sense has to apply to the facts as they stand now. SBC did not go for the easiest and cheapest option - Thames Water did! The option to the West of Thamesdown Drive would have produced an equally effective solution. No other developments would have been hindered. No housing would have been put at risk. Local Councils are supposed to represent the views of their electorate. Thames Water have managed by their lack of notice to prevent residents from causing the planning committee to fully examine the matter. Had the SBC planning committee done so, it is our view that they may well have refused planning permission for the tanks at their present location. This would have required TW to relocate to the West of Thamesdown Drive where nobody would have been affected. We will never know now because TW have managed to side step planning. You may well be happy with this until such time as you find your access to a legal channel which should be open to you frustrated. Should that ever happen to you, I hope you won't be met by chorus of false allegations from your fellow citizens who appear to have little or know knowledge of the real facts.[/p][/quote]You have used your opinion and only quoted yourself??? This does not make facts. So you are asking for current work to cease and move on? Surely this would be a huge cost to fellow citizens causing further harm to the town as a whole. I appreciate you are upset by this development but hardly feel your passive aggressive attitude is required. Are you saying that there have been facts left out of the article? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Quite clearly it isnt all residents as this comments page would of been full of similarly outraged people such as yourself. It is not just you.
Is the site next to your house?

Also you mentioned in an earlier comment that it is hindering development care to elaborate at all?
Quite clearly it isnt all residents as this comments page would of been full of similarly outraged people such as yourself. It is not just you. Is the site next to your house? Also you mentioned in an earlier comment that it is hindering development care to elaborate at all? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

10:36pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

That`s it isnt it????
Work happening next to your house you dont like so this campaign to get it moved.....you really have too much time on your hands.
I would presume you dont use Thamesdown drive and wouldnt mind traffic disruption on one of the main routes in the town.

Ego driven nimby.....
Please feel free to reference your own comments as fact again it was so interesting the last time.
That`s it isnt it???? Work happening next to your house you dont like so this campaign to get it moved.....you really have too much time on your hands. I would presume you dont use Thamesdown drive and wouldnt mind traffic disruption on one of the main routes in the town. Ego driven nimby..... Please feel free to reference your own comments as fact again it was so interesting the last time. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

3:05pm Wed 26 Mar 14

V4CSOI says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
That`s it isnt it????
Work happening next to your house you dont like so this campaign to get it moved.....you really have too much time on your hands.
I would presume you dont use Thamesdown drive and wouldnt mind traffic disruption on one of the main routes in the town.

Ego driven nimby.....
Please feel free to reference your own comments as fact again it was so interesting the last time.
No matter how many question marks you use - it will not turn your assertions and assumptions about me into an argument. For that you need some evidence. Let's have another final look at the facts. Fact 1. I don't live next to the site of the proposed tanks but I do live in Taw Hill. Fact 2. I am already on record (above) as saying ( and have consistently believed and expressed the view ) that residents should accept the tanks in their present location if there is no other viable site that will inconvenience nobody else (so not quite the full blooded Nimby you would like me be!) Fact 3. Thames Water have admitted that there is a potential for the tanks to overflow and flood and that they may emit noise and smells. (if they do this will result in a nuisance to nearby houses.) Fact 4. There are viable alternative sites to the West of Thamesdown Drive. Fact 5. If the tanks were sited to the West of Thamesdown Drive there would be no risk of nuisance to local housing and they would be in nobody's backyard. Fact 6. A full SBC planning committee examination of the matter has been frustrated by Thames Water's tactics. Fact 7. The Leader of SBC wrote to Thames Water asking that they allow the planning process to take its course and was turned down. Fact 8. A northbound Lane of Thamesdown Drive was coned off for a substantial period of time recently and this caused no noticebale traffic disruption ( so there is sufficient area for TW to work in without causing disruption). Conclusion 1. Common sense demands that Tanks should be placed to the West of Thamesdown Drive - Thames Water are bringing a flooding and smell risk to an area where no such risk presently exists when viable alternative sites are available which will remove that risk and inconvenience nobody. Conclusion 2. The operation of the SBC planning committee has been frustrated - the Leader of SBC agrees with me. Your Conclusion - I am a 'ego driven nimby' who 'references my own comments as fact.' - with seemingly nothing except your own views to back it up! - The above facts speak for themselves and are not just 'my comments' no matter how much you would like them to be. If fighting on behalf of a large number of like minded taw Hill residents (a) to try to stop Thames Water taking risks with other peoples property so that they can pursue the cheapest and easiest option for them and (b) to stop undemocratic frustration of the planning process makes me a bad person in your eyes - I can live with that!

You are right about just one thing - I simply do not have enough time available to waste any more of it on you. Good luck with saving the Badgers!
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: That`s it isnt it???? Work happening next to your house you dont like so this campaign to get it moved.....you really have too much time on your hands. I would presume you dont use Thamesdown drive and wouldnt mind traffic disruption on one of the main routes in the town. Ego driven nimby..... Please feel free to reference your own comments as fact again it was so interesting the last time.[/p][/quote]No matter how many question marks you use - it will not turn your assertions and assumptions about me into an argument. For that you need some evidence. Let's have another final look at the facts. Fact 1. I don't live next to the site of the proposed tanks but I do live in Taw Hill. Fact 2. I am already on record (above) as saying ( and have consistently believed and expressed the view ) that residents should accept the tanks in their present location if there is no other viable site that will inconvenience nobody else (so not quite the full blooded Nimby you would like me be!) Fact 3. Thames Water have admitted that there is a potential for the tanks to overflow and flood and that they may emit noise and smells. (if they do this will result in a nuisance to nearby houses.) Fact 4. There are viable alternative sites to the West of Thamesdown Drive. Fact 5. If the tanks were sited to the West of Thamesdown Drive there would be no risk of nuisance to local housing and they would be in nobody's backyard. Fact 6. A full SBC planning committee examination of the matter has been frustrated by Thames Water's tactics. Fact 7. The Leader of SBC wrote to Thames Water asking that they allow the planning process to take its course and was turned down. Fact 8. A northbound Lane of Thamesdown Drive was coned off for a substantial period of time recently and this caused no noticebale traffic disruption ( so there is sufficient area for TW to work in without causing disruption). Conclusion 1. Common sense demands that Tanks should be placed to the West of Thamesdown Drive - Thames Water are bringing a flooding and smell risk to an area where no such risk presently exists when viable alternative sites are available which will remove that risk and inconvenience nobody. Conclusion 2. The operation of the SBC planning committee has been frustrated - the Leader of SBC agrees with me. Your Conclusion - I am a 'ego driven nimby' who 'references my own comments as fact.' - with seemingly nothing except your own views to back it up! - The above facts speak for themselves and are not just 'my comments' no matter how much you would like them to be. If fighting on behalf of a large number of like minded taw Hill residents (a) to try to stop Thames Water taking risks with other peoples property so that they can pursue the cheapest and easiest option for them and (b) to stop undemocratic frustration of the planning process makes me a bad person in your eyes - I can live with that! You are right about just one thing - I simply do not have enough time available to waste any more of it on you. Good luck with saving the Badgers! V4CSOI
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree