tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post5566726677698020685..comments2024-03-28T19:20:52.408+00:00Comments on WEMBLEY MATTERS: Thames Water under scrutiny on flooding: 'We have learnt lessons, we have applied them but it sounds like we don’t get it right enough'Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-70255629957867149162023-02-28T10:27:01.792+00:002023-02-28T10:27:01.792+00:00To the Master planning of flooding in South Kilbur...To the Master planning of flooding in South Kilburn Growth Area add<br /><br />Tall building zone master planner formalised 2022 Brent Local Plan.<br /><br />The estate 'bowl'/'low spot' is actually sinking under developments weight. A new twist on the 'sink estate' 1990's media beloved term.<br /><br />Imagine if the Masters plan(s) was for an eco city scape, designed to hold flood waters, manage and safely keep them always away from homes in this 'sink' being built?<br /><br />In LA they tax paved over land creating a big incentive to de-pave, and have raised $1 billion so far for new flood alleviation projects too!David Waltonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-70085626649358346322023-02-27T19:38:08.168+00:002023-02-27T19:38:08.168+00:00I apologise if my comment above was confusing.
T...I apologise if my comment above was confusing. <br /><br />The paragraph in square brackets was supposed to be at the end, but it was sent from my phone and I must have touch something on the screen by mistake!Philip Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08216646114377430489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-35990637215318685252023-02-27T18:00:13.195+00:002023-02-27T18:00:13.195+00:00Apologies for first paragraph.
Its basically sayi...Apologies for first paragraph.<br /><br />Its basically saying that Thames Water from its presentation to customers has responsibility ending at street. Whereas as the Council Chair stated its more complicated.... <br /><br />Quintuple population on 45ha, where even before massive proposed population growth the neighbourhood had 50% natural flood parkland defences and for topographic hills surrounded 'low spot' designed buildings with no ground floor accommodation, ramps up to them and flood bowl storage hollows designed in, given relying on Victorian culverts was the modernist estate chosen option.<br /><br />Total flood defence design removal brings more corporate customers but also increases major flood risk and grows corporate flood alleviation masterplan responsibilities. The end of 22 years of bit-by-bit, site-by-site developer flood protection responsibilities avoidance pending?David Waltonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-54953410006131104262023-02-27T10:58:46.658+00:002023-02-27T10:58:46.658+00:00Why would Thames Water ever object to more new cus...Why would Thames Water ever object to more new customers regardless of flood risks also being also grown? With your water bill this year, Thames Water presents a house drawn in section where TW responsibility stops at the street. But does in it stop when the street becomes a giant sewage river entering peoples homes and the sewer backs up in reverse to pump sewage out of toilet bowls direct into homes? This false and misleading plan and idea of TW responsibility somehow passes its regulators scrutiny? <br /><br />The new London Plan not mapping Victorian combined sewers in Brent south east doesn't help funding decision makers. Better if these crumbling at over capacity at all times Victorian combined sewers were mapped in.<br /><br />At Brent Local level, the Local Plan Policies Map misses mapping massive fluvial/ sewage floods at Chippenham Gardens and Kilburn Park Road. Westminster has all its Maida Hill floods mapped Local Plan and therefore in the London Plan.<br />Brent did not participate in the Independent Flood Review. Entire South Kilburn Growth Area is however still sneaked in the Review (local water pressure) as part of Maida Vale Flood Study Area, and in flood images of Chippenham Gardens and Malvern Mews under sewage waves used as powerful Review major flood visual data. Imagine if Brent had LFR participated given what in flood reality happened July 2021?<br />Brent Section 19 Flood Investigation has been held in draft form at Wembley since June 2022 but is not yet published for Scrutiny?<br />Brent Draft Sustainable Environment and Development Supplementary Planning Document February 2023 total denies the existence of the River Westbourne and its tributaries in South Kilburn. Wow!<br /><br />If Brent is so unwilling to actual flood alleviation and mitigation engage either, then how will the London Level Surface Water Strategic Group ever target South Kilburn Growth Tall Building Zone?<br /><br />My other question would be, why does Brent make it so easy for Thames Water to ignore flooding in SKGA? What's the corporates deal done there?<br /><br />Thanks to Martin for keeping flood alleviation and mitigation a Brent issue alive.<br />David Waltonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-63985347118684923572023-02-25T16:36:22.562+00:002023-02-25T16:36:22.562+00:00If Cllr Butt is concerned about Thames Water sayin...If Cllr Butt is concerned about Thames Water saying "no comment" regarding Planning Applications, why has he done nothing about it<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-4826372827040458352023-02-25T16:34:59.163+00:002023-02-25T16:34:59.163+00:00Our rivers full of sewage, sewage running along th...Our rivers full of sewage, sewage running along the streets, blocked drains, incorrect connections.<br /><br />This is Thames Water in Brent.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2129943063330427887.post-82047316375106957882023-02-25T10:05:25.000+00:002023-02-25T10:05:25.000+00:00On the specific point raised by Cllr Saqib Butt, t...On the specific point raised by Cllr Saqib Butt, that Thames Water had never raised any objections to planning applications, I can comment from my own experience in 2020, on the 1 Morland Gardens application 20/0345.<br /><br />[By coincidence, I have recently submitted an objection to an application which claimed to comply with Condition 44 of the 1 Morland Gardens planning consent. It showed the proposed route of the diverted water main, just 3 metres away from the Eastern side of the proposed new building!]<br /><br />After a battle with Planning Officers, I had managed to obtain copies of Consultee Comments from various sources, including Thames Water.<br /><br />I submitted an objection comment highlighting points from those Consultees, including that Thames Water had said the proposed building would be within 5 metres of a water main, which was not acceptable.<br /><br />Despite this, when the Planning Officers Report to Planning Committee was published, it said that there were no objections to the application from Thames Water.<br /><br />I submitted a further objection, pointing out this and two other omissions from earlier objections which had not been included in the Report to the Committee members who would make the decision. <br /><br />Planning Officers did include the Thames Water objection in a Supplementary Report, and Condition 44 was added to the consent letter. This specified that no construction should take place within 5 metres of a water main.<br /><br />Philip Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08216646114377430489noreply@blogger.com