Southwark Council has voiced its strong opposition to proposals to use Chambers Wharf for the Thames Tideway Tunnel superseder. The council has set out its objections in its first formal response to the Planning Inspectorate on the impacts of the proposal.
“We strongly believe that Chambers Wharf is the wrong site for such a disruptive, major piece of construction like the Thames Tideway Tunnel,” said Cllr Peter John, Labour leader of the council.
“The proposed location is in the heart of a heavily residential area and very close to three of the borough’s schools. The round-the-clock noise, vibrations and traffic pollution caused by the construction work will blight the lives of these residents and children for years not to mention create significant safety concerns, making living and learning around Chambers Wharf an absolute nightmare.
“Any consultation by Thames Water has been ineffective and flawed at best, and at worst dismissive of the council’s genuine concerns. There has been a lack of information available on how the route of the tunnel and the affected sites have been chosen along with a lack of real opportunity for those affected by the proposals to influence site selection. Furthermore, Thames Water has failed to respond to our concerns about the potential impact of this project on our residents.
“In our opinion, there are better alternative solutions for the construction of the tunnel that would have significantly less impact than the proposals at Chambers Wharf. We will continue to oppose plans until we have achieved the best possible outcome for our residents.”
In a response on behalf of the Southwark Liberal Democrat council group, Riverside councillor Anood Al-Samerai said: “The impact of the proposals on our residents would be enormous – with six years of work, including 90 lorry movements a day and round the clock noise for the first three years, it would be impossible for them to carry on with their lives as normal.”
Councillor Eliza Mann added in her own response: “There are 150 residential properties in very close proximity to the proposed site, mainly on the nearby Dickens Estate which is home to 800 residents, all of which would be very badly affected by the plans.”