Testing times ahead for the Thames Tideway Tunnel

Despite being granted its Development Consent Order (DCO) by the government in September, the Thames Tideway Tunnel still faces at least a couple more hurdles before this £4.2 billion mega-project is in the clear.

Since the idea was first mooted back in 2005, the super sewer has faced criticism from all sides and for a variety of reasons: expense, disruption, and environmental impact to name a few.

However, there are now two legal challenges being mounted and appeals for judicial reviews have been made. One has been submitted by Southwark Council, and the other by Thames Blue-Green Economy, a group of independent experts – including engineers, environmentalists, and lawyers.

Southwark Council is opposing the proposed use of the Chamber’s Wharf site as one of the 24 construction sites for the super sewer project.

Leader of Southwark Council, Peter John, said the super sewer would have a “devastating impact” on thousands of people living around the Chamber’s Wharf site and that the council backed the opinion of five individual planning inspectors who, concluded that Abbey Mills would be a more appropriate site with far less impact.

He added: “We have discussed this with legal counsel and believe we have a strong case, but we are under no illusions, we are very much David taking on Goliath.”

John added that he aims “the best possible outcome” for residents in his borough by getting the drive site moved, rather than trying to bring the project to a complete halt.

Save Your Riverside residents’ campaign group chair, Barney Holbeche, also backed Southwark’s appeal for a judicial review. He said: “The credibility of the planning process is in doubt because of this decision on the tunnel.”

A potentially more significant obstacle to the progress of the Tideway Tunnel comes from the Thames Blue-Green Economy group, which wants to stop the super sewer project being developed so that “cheaper, quicker, lower risk, and more sustainable” solutions can be implemented.

Their particular grievance – aside from the fact they think the Tideway project is overpriced and unnecessary – and basis for the legal challenge “is a straight forward one that there was inadequate consultation” according to Emily Shirley, a vocal supporter of Thames Blue-Green Economy’s campaign, a non-practicing barrister, and director of Kent Environment and Community Network.

This, she told Utility Week, breaches the Aarhus Convention, which became active in European Law in 2001. The Arhus Convention – which is named after the Danish city where it was adopted – states that parties to the Convention are required to ensure: access to environmental information; public participation in environmental decision making; and access to justice.

Shirley added: “They should have looked at the need for the tunnel, all the arguments of needs and alternatives.

“The government could not consider all the issues raised because they had taken away those considerations from themselves.”

This, she claimed, breaches the second pillar of the Aarhus Convention, because there was not suitable or adequate consultation and the only option put before the public was that of the super sewer.

“There seems to be closed ears and these ears need to be forced open,” she said.

Director of Thames Blue Green Economy, Dido Berkeley, added that Thames Water had a “very smooth PR campaign” to convince the public that the super sewer was “the only option”.

She told Utility Week if the Thames Blue-Green Economy appeal is unsuccessful, the group will look to continue their legal challenge, potentially taking their case all the way to the European Court of Justice.

“We hope to get an oral hearing [in the UK] or we will take this all the way to Europe,” she said.

However, the actions taken by Thames Blue-Green Economy, and Southwark Council, do not appear to be overly concerning for either the government of the Thames Tideway Tunnel team.

A spokesperson from Thames Tideway Tunnel said that while they were aware of the applications for the Judicial Reviews against the DCO for the super sewer, “work on the project is continuing as business as usual”.

The government were equally confident. A spokesman said: “We have full confidence in the robustness of the Development Consent Order and are unable to comment on any ongoing legal proceedings.”

The appeals for the Judicial Reviews are likely to be heard within the coming month, and we will then find out how robust the government’s DCO was, and whether the Thames Tideway Tunnel does face a serious threat to its future.