Transport Insights

I have got more information (but not much) from Richmond Council about its farcical decision to fine a resident for pouring the remains of a cup of coffee down a gully, with the upshot being that it really should outright withdraw its claim that an offence was committed.

Equally important, the point remains that if a small quantity of coffee risks polluting the borough’s waterways, runoff from its own roads is far worse.

As I have said before, where my request under the Freedom of Information Act should have elicited factual information, the highway authority has responded with PR.

This has not changed and in particular, very specifically-worded questions have been met with generalisations , obfuscation and wishful thinking, no doubt because the council is aware that it (still) doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

To recap, in October Burcu Yesilyurt was given a fine by Richmond’s enforcement officers under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water. Although the council rescinded the fine, it still insisted that an offence had occurred.

I have already established that the gully in question links to a Thames Water surface drainage system, which then flows into the river of the same name.

This means that, despite being “committed to protecting Richmond’s waterways”, the council is potentially discharging thousands of gallons of contaminated runoff into the Thames.

The specific question I asked the council was:

what mitigation is in place to protect Richmond’s waterways from the runoff via gullies on the street in question?

Despite expressly referencing the street in question, I got a very generic response:

Richmond’s waterways are protected from street runoff by a multi-pronged approach including regular gully maintenance (cleaning and clearing debris), implementing Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS like filter drains, wetlands), using “end-of-pipe” tech like Downstream Defenders to trap sediment, community engagement via “Gully Guardians” and strategic planning through the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) to manage flood risk and introduce green infrastructure.

It would be lovely if all this was happening everywhere but gully maintenance doesn’t really tackle dissolved pollutants and I am always suspicious of the word “regular”, which could mean once every five years. In fact, the purpose of the (volunteer) Gully Guardians seems to be to alert the council to blocked gullies that have not been picked up by “regular” maintenance:

Although the Council’s Highways Department inspect the gullies within the borough themselves, there are around 17,000 gullies and they need support in monitoring them.

As for the question of:

what assessment [did the council make] of the relative scale and composition of the coffee tipped into the gully relative to day to day runoff to satisfy itself that such a contravention occurred?

The council ducked the question altogether, presumably because no assessment was made:

Detergents from car washing or other runoff from such activities, disposing of kitchen waste, dishwater, coffee or other liquids that are not authorised to enter the water table may be deemed to be an offence prescribed by Section 33 or Section 87.

May be deemed to be an offence! May does not mean yes!