Thames Water is facing continued opposition to its proposals for the Thames Tideway Tunnel – despite an announcement last week that nearly 85% of Londoners support the project according to a survey  commissioned by the company.

On Friday the utility announced the start of a 12-week period for the public to review updated construction proposals, ahead of an application for planning consent.

Lady Dido Berkeley, director of Thamesbank, a voluntary group that campaigns for the protection and enhancement of the River Thames and its environment, has written to Chief Executive of Thames Water Martin Baggs enquiring about the extent to which the firm has examined the approach used in Philadelphia – the city’s Green City, Clean Waters 25-year plan to protect and enhance watersheds by managing stormwater with green infrastructure. Thamesbank is also seeking an explanation of why the green infrastructure approach of has not been applied to London.

Lady Berkeley raised the issues earlier this month with Thames Water, commenting:

"Thamesbank is not satisfied that the best up to date short and long-term solutions for the sewage problems of the River Thames have been effectively looked at and properly investigated. “

“We and many others would like to see the example of the latest technology used in Philadelphia's Green City/ Clean Water applied to London's sewage problems, and the city itself, over the next 20 years.

We also understand that it is quite possible and would be a better integrated water management solution than the single tunnel, which fails to address the causes of the sewage in the river or London's flooding or drought."

We look forward to an early response from Thames Water to the questions raised from Thamesbank in the email below on this urgent and serious matter.”

Mayor Boris Johnson says "mounting concern about costs and disruption"

A meeting organised at City Hall by the Save Your Riverside Action Group at the end of June also flagged up ongoing concerns by local communities impacted by the plans. Chaired by the Group’s GLA representative, Val Shawcross, the meeting reaffirmed opposition to the use of Chambers Wharf in Bermondsey as a major drilling and reception site for building the Thames Tunnel.

In a statement to the meeting, Mayor Boris Johnson said:

“Although I am supportive of measures to address the polluting of the River Thames, it has become very clear to me that there is mounting concern about the costs of this project and the severe disruption for many people in different parts of London, which is clearly worse than anticipated. That is why I have written to the Environment Secretary expressing my concern. I and my officials are in constant contact with ministers and Thames Water to put Londoners' case that some of the proposed locations are unacceptable and the mitigations insufficient.”

Please be assured that as your Mayor I will continue to push the Government and Thames Water to clean up the River - something we all want - in a way that minimises any disruption at locations that are acceptable at a cost that is affordable to the London water bill payer."

Simon Hughes MP told the audience that the stated cost of the project was of concern to the Government  and questioned the proposed financing for the project, while Leader of Southwark Council Peter John raised the possibility of seeking a judicial review.

To date Thamesbank has yet to receive a response from Thames Water, which over the weekend took out full-page advertisements in the national press publicising its proposed application for a development consent order for the Thames Tideway Tunnel to authorise the construction, operation and maintenance of the project. The notice brings home the immense scale and impact of the project and the work and timescales involved. All the documents, plans and maps are available for inspection from today until 5 October - the deadline for submission of written comments. The proposed application will also seek authorisation for a number of other requirements, including:

• the compulsory purchase of land and interests in and rights over land
• the temporary use of land
• the temporary and permanent stopping up of highways
• the interference with public rights of way and navigation.