£2.2 billion super sewer – two sides to the story

by Hammersmith and Fulham Press Office
18/11/2008

Hundreds of residents attended a public meeting on Monday to question whether the benefits of the Thames Tunnel justify its £2.2 billion price tag.

For the first time residents heard directly from Thames Water about the scheme and got an assurance that Ravenscourt Park is ‘highly unlikely’ to be the starting point for the tunnel under the Thames - although a question mark remains over where the construction site will be.

Thames Water claim that the 20 mile long sewage storage tank, which would take at least eight years to build, is needed to prevent sewage flowing into the Thames.

The huge entrance to the tunnel is the size of four football pitches. Councillor Paul Bristow has responsibility for parks and open spaces in H&F and opened the meeting by asking whether the super sewer provides value for money or whether it is a white elephant. He said: “We want to know what this scheme will actually cost, whether the environmental, aesthetic and health benefits are worth it and what residents’ priorities are for Thames Water.”

Richard Aylard from Thames Water told the meeting that the Thames Tunnel is needed to meet European Union directives on water quality. But Andrew Whetnall from the Consumer Council for Water hit back saying, “The test is whether the extremely high costs justify a relatively small improvement in water quality.”

The meeting heard that the health benefits of the scheme were minimal with only 18 cases of illness reported in a 15 month survey of rowers. The ecological benefits are also negligible with fish stocks improving year on year without the tunnel. 120 species were counted in the Thames last year with some rare visitors like sea horses now returning.

Richard Ashley, Professor of Urban Water at Sheffield University, who is a renowned expert in this area and has many years of experience in urban waste water systems, also believes that the super sewer is flawed. He said: “This is an extremely expensive scheme which is actually unlikely to function efficiently, has an enormous carbon footprint and does nothing to reduce flooding or reduce global warming.”

Contrary to Thames Water’s previous position the meeting also heard that there could be a viable alternative to the super sewer. Costing just £400million the shorter Lee tunnel, from Abbey Mills to Beckton, deals with half of the total estimated overflows into the Thames. An alternative to the Thames Tunnel is a shorter direct route tunnel from Beckton to Chelsea, via Abbey Mills and Tower Bridge, which could pick up some 90 per cent of estimated overflows at lower cost.

H&F Council Leader, Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh, added: “For the first time – thanks to this public meeting – we have got an assurance that Ravenscourt Park is ‘highly unlikely’ to be the starting point of the super sewer. Tonight was about giving residents a chance to listen to both sides of the story and have their say.”

Hounslow Council Leader, Cllr Peter Thompson, added: “Having listened to the arguments here tonight I am not convinced yet that the Thames Tunnel represents good value for money. Together with H&F Council, we are calling for an independent study into the Thames Tunnel to explore whether it does provide value for money and whether there are alternatives.”

» Watch the super sewer public meeting video on H&F:TV (opens new window)