| Topic: | Barn Elms vs Hammersmith | |
| Posted by: | Tim Wright | |
| Date/Time: | 20/11/10 20:11:00 |
| To my mind, these are the only two sites where the main shaft could be built. Anywhere upstream of Hammersmith Bridge is out due to the bridge being too low making river transport impractical. TW originally select Hammersmith Embankment as the preferred site, but are now keen to avoid even mentioning it. So putting aside economic reasons here are the main points why Hammersmith should be chosen and Barn Elms rejected: Both sites are of equal standing when it comes to incorporating a tunnel intercept (CSO) with a main shaft site. I do not accept the argument that it is useful to be able to tunnel both ways from the Barn Elms site as the Hammersmith Embankment site is so close. Reasons not to use Barn Elms 1) Considerable number of residential properties in close proximity to the shaft site (wrongly identified by Thames Water as factories) 2) A greenfield site and of significant enviromental importance, including wild life and recreation 3) The extreme danger of building a working wharf in the close vicinity to a huge amount of watersports activities, including the disruption to navigation, and the need to dredge the river adjacent to Fulham Football ground. The position of the wharf would also force rowers of all abilities into the main channel where they would face the extremely dangerous situation of sharing the channel with tugs, barges and other commercial river traffic. 4) Road access to the Barn Elms site is extremely difficult. The roads in and around Barnes are completely unsuitable for any heavy plant traffic, or indeed any increase in traffic levels as a result of the proposed Barn Elms site. Road access into Barn Elms site itself is unsuitable. Queen Elizabeth Walk cannot be used due to use by the public including children of the Wetlands Centre and various clubs, and new access roads across Barn Elms would be enviromentally unacceptable. Reasons to select Hammersmith Embankment 1) Not one blade of grass would need to be dug up to build the main shaft at this site. The site is an empty and flattened building site ready for the works to start. There would be no enviromental impact at this site 2) The residential properties are set back from the river, and the only properties close to the acttual shaft site are offices. 3) Road access is easy with the A4 in close proximity 4) River access is suitable. The river wall had been built up and for centuries this area hass been used as wharfage.Until recently a large vessel of several hundred tons was moored alongside this site and rose and fell with the tide with no difficuty. Campsheds for barges weighing several hundred tons can be easily constructed alongside Hammersmith Embankment, or dredging of the area can be done to ensure barges are afloat at all states of tide. The location is down stream of Hammersmith Bridge meaning height restrictions do not apply and I do not accept the proximity to the bridge is an issue, as similar barge operations take place at the Wandsworth refuse site at close proximity to Wandsworth Bridge A wharf in this area will be significantly less disruptive to the watersports activities than the Barn Elms section of river. No brainer to me....but rather costly for Thames Water |