| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | |
| Posted by: | Tom Pike | |
| Date/Time: | 21/06/25 12:54:00 |
| Andrew originally claimed "Conway staff appear to be assuring people that there is no problem with the original pilings and I am told a Hammersmith and Fulham officer confirmed likewise in a public meeting back in February." It's all hearsay, and there was certainly no LBHF public meeting about the bridge in February. Andrew also made misleading claims that Fugro gave the bridge the structural all clear, so I would not put too much weight on his "verbal reports". You claim "structural viability reports will have been presented to the DfT as part of the business case for the bridge." In fact the business case was first presented by LBHF to DfT in 2022 before the geotechnical survey had taken place. It's certainly possible to make a decision contingent on subsequent technical reports, and that was never given as the reason DfT have previously failed to even put LBHF's case on their agenda. There have been no reports, written, verbal, hearsay or otherwise, from COWI who are the only ones able to assess if the bridge had the necessary stability to be able to take the additional weight of the double-decker structure. Their report was due at LBHF this spring, and COWI are certainly not going to disclose it to anyone other than LBHF. |