UK tax payers will be liable for £900 million pounds worth of risk if the proposed Thames Tideway Tunnel goes ahead as planned. For Thames Water customers, 24% of England's population, it is worse since they will have to find an extra £14.42Bn extra over the next 30 years.
The tunnel is technically feasible but costs much more than the equally technically feasible green alternatives that have been developed since the mid-1990s. These provide far more benefits than a 19th century end of pipe solution including carbon savings, improved air quality less concentrated disruption to residents, street trees, roof gardens, urban farming and a refuge for birds and other animals from the chemically blighted countryside.
Thames Water gave false information to the world renowned UK Professor who was commissioned to carry out an under-scoped study that scandalously resulted in dismissal of sustainable solutions for the UK's capital city.
The man who could revise out dated national waste water policy is the government promoter of genetically modified foods, Owen Patterson, Secretary of State for DEFRA. Please let him know that his position is based on an untenable policy and demand an independent review of the evidence for Green Infrastructure. Four and a quarter more jobs than the tunnel depend upon it together with creation of a lasting green economy and better environment for residents and visitors alike.
Dear Minister,
In view of the highly questionable waste water policy that currently supports building the Thames Tideway Tunnel; please instigate an independent costed study and review of evidence in support of the affordable, sustainable solutions presented by green infrastructure.
The basis for the dismissal of sustainable solutions to resolve the issue of pollution of the Thames Tideway by the Thames Tideway Study was made because Appendix E of the NEEDS report (the SuDS study) contains incorrect presumptions, incorrect data and a scope of methodology that is out of date.
Directive 2011/92/EU together with normal cost/benefit procedures and common sense requires that Whole of Life cost comparisons should be carried out however; this has not been done.
Please bear in mind that it is government policy to create jobs. Green Infrastructure installations would create over four times as many jobs as the tunnel and create a permanent green economy in London.
Green Infrastructure entails none of the contingent risk associated with the tunnel proposal that the government and UK tax payers would adopt under current policy. Disruption would be diffuse, London's air quality would be improved, aesthetically, green infrastructure is superior to a tunnel and results where green infrastructure has been instigated show increased community cohesion and a significant drop in crime. These factors have not been considered by the government's cost/benefit analyses.
Surely it is your duty to ensure due diligence is carried out before committing millions of citizens to spending billions of pounds.
Yours sincerely,
