| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Thames Tunnel | |
| Posted by: | Jenny Featherstone | |
| Date/Time: | 25/09/10 19:13:00 |
| Regarding construction of wharves into the river; it is the north or Hammersmith side that has the deeper water channel, more suitable for wharf construction. The south (Putney) side has the wide shallow sweep and sand banks which is why they would have to project out so far - I dont know if that is why rowing takes place from the south shore. Putney might recover from a 2 year work programe, however after 7 + years the vehicle access used by the contractors, the blockages of the towpath and indeed any wharves would almost certainly stay. 7 years is too long to recover from and it is not nimby to surmise that wild life and common land is less likely to recover intact than a brownfield site. Richmond has previously shown no interest in Barn Elms and I think I recall that Wandworth has had to force action onto them over playing fields? That puts the onus on Wandsworth council alone to fight this off, although surely they can ally with others such as wildlife conservation and green interests? I knew nothing about this and feel the scale of it should have been publicised more by the council as likely to be detrimental to west Putney residents and workers, users of towpath and wildlife centre. The area most suited for this deep shaft should have good modern road transport with easy access for waste removal and there should be a low environmental impact and have as few residents as possible to disturb due to noisy machinery. And it needs to have the river close by. So far Twickenham seems to fit the bill and Putney doesnt. Why is the reasoning behind sinking the main shaft at Barn Elms? |