Thames Water is continuing with its efforts to engage and respond to concerns about its proposals for the Thames Tunnel via its ongoing stakeholder engagement campaign. However, the company still appears to be facing opposition from a number of opposition groups on issues ranging from construction site location to the costs of the project.

On Tuesday this week Thames Water wielded a heavyweight group of speakers at a stakeholder event in London to launch the environmental case for the tunnel – including environmentalist Tony Juniper, Roger de Freitas from the Hammersmith Society and West London River Group, Councillor Catherine West, Leader of Islington Borough Council and Jill Goddard, Executive Director of Thames Estuary Partnerships.

Introducing the new ecological report ‘Why does London’s river need the Thames Tunnel’, Richard Aylard, External Affairs and Sustainability Director for Thames Water, said that without the Thames Tunnel the ecology of the river Thames would start to go backwards.

Catherine West, who also chairs Islington’s Transport and Environment Committee, said that both delay and uncertainty was unacceptable - “despite the extensive drawbacks to the project”, the tunnel was one of the types of infrastructure projects London needed and essentially, she welcomed the proposals. However, one of the questions to go on the table for further debate was the question of paying for the scheme in its totality. Some Government investment was needed and there was a need to unlock funding from the City – without Government money the City would not move. The scheme was needed, provided that both environmental and cost issues could be addressed and that it offered Londoners the opportunity for jobs.

Tony Juniper commented that the Thames Tunnel was the best idea on the table at the moment and London needed a durable solution. Environmental improvement was not free but was the type of substantial and worthwhile investment that civilised societies should make.

Gill Goddard from the Thames Estuary Partnership said London needed to solve its sewage problem and that while TEP itself was neutral on the solution. The majority of its members had clearly expressed their support for the Tunnel. However, she added that this was mainly because if there were other options enough had not been heard about them.

Following the presentations, stakeholders were given the opportunity to ask wide-ranging questions of all the speakers. One attendee raised the issue of the level of funding directed to examine the available options, commenting that there had been a “disproportionate direction of resources.” Figures quoted were a spend of £100M on assessing the Tunnel solution, as opposed to £200K on other alternatives.

In response, Phil Stride, Head of London Tideway Tunnels at Thames Water, said that up to 2006 the Thames Strategic Study Group had expended an equal amount of effort on all the options under consideration on the basis of a level playing field. Post-March 2007 when Thames were given Government permission to proceed with a single tunnel option more had been spent on assessing that particular option. He added that he did not recognise some of the figures quoted but that he did not see a problem with a request to release a complete breakdown of design expenditure costs to date.

A representative from the Fulham Society described the Tunnel’s impact on residents for a six to seven year period as “a monstrous proposition.” Richard Aylard said that Thames recognised that there would be local impacts on and was looking at ways of reducing the impacts on impacts on residents.  However, he commented:

“We have not been convinced by the alternatives that have been presented to us.”

Other stakeholders wanted an assurance that Thames Water would not leave contractors to make decisions on key issues. In response, Phil Stride said that Thames Water would make very specific provisions on the commitments it made and how these would be transferred into contract requirements.

In response to a query about the carbon footprint of the Thames Tunnel in terms of both its construction and operation, Tony Juniper said that this was a judgement that society had to make in terms of balancing carbon costs against environmental improvements. In his view in this case it was worthwhile, describing the Tunnel in terms of “carbon investment” as opposed to “carbon costs”, and commenting:

“ I back the project even though I’ve spent the last twenty years campaigning about climate change.”

Thames Water is now planning to hold a targeted consultation on possible amendments to four proposed Thames Tunnel sites at Barn Elms, Putney Embankment Foreshore, Victoria Embankment Foreshore and Albert Embankment Foreshore as a result of feedback received during phase two consultation. The consultation will start on 6 June 2012 and finish on 4 July 2012.

Following a detailed review, Thames Water's  24 preferred sites presented for public scrutiny last November remain unchanged, described by Thames as "understandably .. unwelcome news for those living close to the sites." The utility's aim is to submit an application for a development consent  order in early 2013, following Section 48 publicity on its finalised plan later this year.