Thames Tideway Tunnel

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Received 30 April 2013
From Ms Gill Lister

Representation

I live in Australia, but own a flat in   which is rented out. So, while I am currently not directly affected by the noise and disruption my tenants will be, and it is likely that rentals in the area will experience reduced income as a result of the consequences of the construction. It is a high density residential area, so many people will be affected by the noise, construction dust, sewerage smells and congestion. Also, there are schools in the area affected.

I understand there are alternatives that have been proposed, including the conclusions of the independent Thames Tunnel Commission, chaired by Lord Selborne and endorsed by 5 London councils, including Southwark. There are suggestions that Thames Water could use its own industrial sites, and so avoid the impact on a residential area. Some of these alternative proposals appear to be considerably less expensive. And I understand that at a meeting at Abbey Mills, one of the possible alternatives, Thames Water representatives did agree that there would be enough capacity for removing spoil and so not interrupt the progress of the tunnel boring.

So, have the alternatives been properly, impartially, thoroughly assessed? If not, then they should be. Is there an overwhelming, definitive argument/rationale for Chambers Wharf, given the negative impact on thousands of people during the years of construction, and the cost to the public purse? What are the criteria that have been used to choose Chambers Wharf, and how valid are they, weighed against what seem to be technically reasonable alternatives that cost the public less, both economically and in terms of quality of life?