Thames Tunnel Update

Dreary suburban planting proposed on what is now informal open space.

Boris Johnson has written to Richard Aylard, Thames Water's External Affairs and Sustainability Director, calling for a re-examination of five aspects of the Thames Tunnel project. One of the said five aspects is Deptford Church Street in regard of which Boris says:

"This site is adjacent to a school and on one of the few open spaces in this deprived area of London. The site will also impact on a busy section of the road network which is also an important bus route. I think there is more scope for alternative sites in this area, including the options examined in the first phase of consultation and again I urge you to search for a site that has lower impact."

Local Campaign: Don't Dump On Deptford's Heart

The full text of the letter:

"Dear Richard

Thames Tunnel Sewer
Further to my response to the Phase 2 consultation, I have reconsidered this project, not least because I have heard of the concerns from some of the Londoners who will be most severely affected.

I remain committed to the project because we must address these sewer overflows. However, I think that there are five areas where the project needs to be re—examined:

1. Overall project cost
2. Chambers Wharf
3. Camwath Road
4. Deptford Church Street
5. Kirtling Street

Overall project cost
My Advisers have had meetings with Richard Benyon MP over the past couple of years on this matter. The scale of the overall project cost appears to me to need tighter control. I have previously requested that the Minister takes direct control of this himself, and I will take this up with the Minister again. I want him to build in incentives to ensure that the project is built to the lowest reasonable cost and to ensure that there are no perverse incentives to you (Thames Water) to make this asset as big as possible.

Furthermore, the way in which Thames Water customers will pay for this, adding £80-£100 per year to bills, is unacceptable to me. We must get to a funding mechanism that enables customers to pay for the necessary infrastructure in a finite amount of time, accepting of course that there will be a degree of operational and maintenance funding.

Chambers Wharf
This site is right up against people's homes. I realise that you are proposing to cover the main works with a warehouse building. However, I can only think that this will be intolerable for local people. You must re-examine the area for a better alternative site and re—examine the option of driving the tunnel from Abbey Mills to this area.

Carnwath Road
This site is also close to people's homes and again you have proposed to cover the main construction works with a warehouse building. I do not think that you have proposed enough use of water transport given the busy urban nature of this area and this is another case where you must look harder for alternatives.

Deptford Church Street
This site is adjacent to a school and on one of the few open spaces in this deprived area of London. This site will also impact on a busy section of the road network which is also an important bus route. I think that there is more scope for alternative sites in this area, including the options examined in the first phase of consultation and again I urge you to search for a site that has lower impact.

Kirtling Street
I realise that this is the singie biggest construction site, being a double drive site. However, the potential impact that this would have on the regeneration of this area is immense. You should ensure that the design, layout and operation of the site does not undermine the regeneration of the Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Area and in particular have an adverse impact on the Riverlight development.

We all want this project to succeed, but to do so you must find a way of overcoming the huge public concern about some of the construction sites and the cost of the project.

Yours ever,
SIGNED
Boris Johnson
Mayor of London

Cc: Richard Benyon MP, Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State, Defra"

The original letter can be viewed here.

Plan of the proposals at Deptford Church Street.

Environmental Justice: The Thames Tunnel

The internet is currently buzzing with stories and comments regarding Thames Water's proposals for a sewage storage tunnel under the river Thames. The project was approved by government when Tony Blair was premier and is now approved by coalition. As I found out on Thursday at the Thames Estuary Partnership's Annual Forum the current minister Mr Richard Benyon MP is a firm supporter of the project. Unusually for a government minister he answered questions from the floor and it was clear that he was not just depending on a narrow civil servant's briefing, but that he had extensive personal knowledge of the subject. It is very clear that the project is going ahead.

On 4 November Thames Water announced the 2nd round of consultation on the project and on their website they make much of their "increased use of brownfield land" for the main tunnel drive sites. Thames justify this up by reference to inter alia "potentially serious health and safety risks to river users during the construction phase." The risks themselves are unspecified.

Here in Deptford the previously preferred bore site near Borthwick Wharf, where spoil could have left by river, has been replaced by a site in Deptford Church Street, where spoil will leave by road. According to Londonist a bore site at Barn Elms, Barnes has been replaced as the preferred option by a site at Carnwath Road, Wandsworth.

The picture is not entirely clear, but it is hard not to suspect that what has actually happened is that sites near middle class riverside developments have been replaced by sites in poorer areas. At this point I experience a feeling of déjà vu because some six years or so back I found myself helping to edit a petition opposing the Crossrail Bill. The organisation I was involved with did not oppose the line itself, but was fiercely opposed to what was then commonly known as the Hanbury Street Hole. This hole was a main shaft for removing the spoil from the tunneling for the railway line rather proposed in the heart of east London's Bengali community. In the face of many such petitions Crossrail eventually realised the error of their ways and dug their shaft elsewhere.

Environmental Justice
The term / concept of Environmental Justice originated in the United States in the 1980s in response to a realisation that polluting industries were disproportionally located in areas with large black populations.
See: http://www.avoiceonline.org/environmental/history.html

In England there is a direct relationship between polluting industries and poverty clearly set out by Carolyn Stephens and others in a 2001 briefing paper for Friends of the Earth, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the Economic & Social Research Council:
Environmental justice: Rights and means to a healthy environment for all (pdf)

More information about mapping such inequalities can be found in Muki Haklay & others' 2007 paper:
Bottom-up Environmental Justice in the UK: a fairer, greener London. (pdf)


At some point there will have to be a planning application of some sort for the Thames Tunnel and although nobody is entirely clear, in the light of government proposals regarding planning, who will be deciding the application it will require a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) by the decision maling body (or bodies). A proper EIA can only be conducted if Thames Water are required to submit, as part of their Environmental Statement, a fully verifiable report comparing the socio-economic data of original sites, preferred sites and other sites considered.

A public meeting with Thames Tunnel representatives will take place on Tuesday 15th November at 7.30pm in the Salvation Army Hall on Mary Ann Gardens, Deptford. See: http://j.mp/rHvovZ