Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Southwark may bring legal challenge against Tideway verdict

Southwark Council leader Peter John has branded the approval of the £4bn Thames Tideway Tunnel project as “ludicrous”.

Communities secretary Eric Pickles and environment secretary Elizabeth Truss today granted development consent for the super sewer. Construction will start in 2016.

Southwark Council has vehemently opposed the inclusion in the scheme of a drive site at Chamber’s Wharf within the borough.

John said: “I am appalled the secretaries of state have so utterly failed to take into account the significant impacts this super sewer work will have on the residents who live, work and go to school in this area.”

He added: “We will continue to fight this decision and look at all our options including a judicial review, and ensure Thames Water is held to account along every step of the planning process and get the best possible outcome for our residents.”

Readers' comments (3)

  • Sand the only people to benefit will be the lawyers!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And the only people to benefit will be the lawyers!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Barry Walton

    I wonder whether Southwalk Council are appalled by all of the other holes dug through London's crust or do they think there is a particular nature to the shafts and tunnel for a sewage transfer scheme? With, what is it, 8 km of river frontage as their northern boundary one might think that they and their residents would be pleased that something was going to be done about the Thames acting as a combined sewer overflow. Would the best possible outcome for their people, who will disproportionately benefit from a scheme paid for by all of Thames Water's customers, not be to desist from being a nuisance and allow the job to get built as quickly as it can be?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.