Thames Water’s controversial Thames Tunnel ‘super sewer’ may not now be needed after all, according to the industry expert who originally proposed the scheme.
On the same day that Thames Water’s consultation on the 20 mile long super sewer closes Chris Binnie - who was the independent Chairman of the Thames Tideway Strategic Study Group from 2000 to 2006 - rocked the water utility company by releasing a detailed cost benefit analysis proving the business case is fundamentally flawed and likely to be in breach of EU rules.
Binnie’s intervention is hugely significant as the super sewer is set to cost hard-pressed water bill payers at least £4.1 billion while delivering just £300million benefits.
Mr Binnie has reviewed Defra documents which he says ‘significantly overstated’ the benefits of the project while ‘wholly ignoring uncertainties around population growth, income growth and asset life’. Rather than using over optimistic estimates, Mr Binnie has re-worked the modelling using industry standard analysis for the various benefits of the tunnel such as reduced fish kills and health benefits.
Riverside communities from Fulham to Bermondsey have mobilised against the seven years of construction work the tunnel will bring and 14 million Thames Water customers face yearly annual increases of £80 on top of current bills to pay for the grandiose engineering project.
The estimated cost of super sewer has spiralled from £1.7 billion in 2006 to £4.1billion today and the EU’s Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, which Thames Water regularly cite as the main driver for the project, clearly states that any solution to make rivers cleaner must use the ‘the best technical knowledge not entailing excessive cost.’
In a 70 page report submitted to Government ministers Mr Binnie instead proposes a much cheaper solution involving fixed and mobile ‘bubblers and skimmers’ which would boost oxygen levels, reduce litter and clean the water. Mr Binnie says a similar scheme in Cardiff Harbour has delivered significant benefits at a fraction of the cost of the sewer and that London should be following suit.
Mr Binnie says: “The huge and escalating costs of the Thames Tunnel no longer justify the benefits. The EU Directive is very clear that member states are expected to use the best technical knowledge not entailing excessive cost. Given that an independent and more realistic appraisal of the cost benefit analysis of the Thames Tunnel means that the benefits no longer justify the costs, I am proposing a similar solution to the one successfully used in Cardiff Harbour. If Thames Water followed the Cardiff model Londoners could enjoy all the benefits of a cleaned up River Thames without the excessive costs.
This must be investigated independently with a view to seeing how this could work in practice.”
Mr Binnie says the other benefit of his proposal is that it could be delivered far more quickly - and therefore deliver the environmental benefits much sooner - than the six years it will take to build the super sewer.
One of the areas potentially worst affected by the super sewer is the tight-knit residential community around Carnwath Road on the Fulham riverside.
Cllr Nick Botterill, Hammersmith & Fulham (H&F) Council Deputy Leader, has been a consistent critic of the scheme. He says: “When the respected water industry expert who originally proposed the Thames Tunnel says the project is unnecessary it is time for everyone to listen.
“Mr Binnie has recognised that the escalating and massive costs of this monstrous white elephant do not now justify the comparatively small benefits.
“We only have to look to cities like Cardiff to see that there are other ways of meeting our EU obligations to improve the water quality without the years of construction work chaos in residential areas and without driving millions of hard pressed water bill payers into water poverty.”
Thames Tideway Tunnel Costs and Benefits Analysis (Feb 2012)
For more click on www.lbhf.gov.uk/supersewer.
Riverside communities from Fulham to Bermondsey have mobilised against the seven years of construction work the tunnel will bring and 14 million Thames Water customers face yearly annual increases of £80 on top of current bills to pay for the grandiose engineering project.
The estimated cost of super sewer has spiralled from £1.7 billion in 2006 to £4.1billion today and the EU’s Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, which Thames Water regularly cite as the main driver for the project, clearly states that any solution to make rivers cleaner must use the ‘the best technical knowledge not entailing excessive cost.’
In a 70 page report submitted to Government ministers Mr Binnie instead proposes a much cheaper solution involving fixed and mobile ‘bubblers and skimmers’ which would boost oxygen levels, reduce litter and clean the water. Mr Binnie says a similar scheme in Cardiff Harbour has delivered significant benefits at a fraction of the cost of the sewer and that London should be following suit.
Mr Binnie says: “The huge and escalating costs of the Thames Tunnel no longer justify the benefits. The EU Directive is very clear that member states are expected to use the best technical knowledge not entailing excessive cost. Given that an independent and more realistic appraisal of the cost benefit analysis of the Thames Tunnel means that the benefits no longer justify the costs, I am proposing a similar solution to the one successfully used in Cardiff Harbour. If Thames Water followed the Cardiff model Londoners could enjoy all the benefits of a cleaned up River Thames without the excessive costs.
This must be investigated independently with a view to seeing how this could work in practice.”
Mr Binnie says the other benefit of his proposal is that it could be delivered far more quickly - and therefore deliver the environmental benefits much sooner - than the six years it will take to build the super sewer.
One of the areas potentially worst affected by the super sewer is the tight-knit residential community around Carnwath Road on the Fulham riverside.
Cllr Nick Botterill, Hammersmith & Fulham (H&F) Council Deputy Leader, has been a consistent critic of the scheme. He says: “When the respected water industry expert who originally proposed the Thames Tunnel says the project is unnecessary it is time for everyone to listen.
“Mr Binnie has recognised that the escalating and massive costs of this monstrous white elephant do not now justify the comparatively small benefits.
“We only have to look to cities like Cardiff to see that there are other ways of meeting our EU obligations to improve the water quality without the years of construction work chaos in residential areas and without driving millions of hard pressed water bill payers into water poverty.”
Thames Tideway Tunnel Costs and Benefits Analysis (Feb 2012)
For more click on www.lbhf.gov.uk/supersewer.
Comments