The Government has today given the go-ahead for the £4billion Thames Tunnel project which includes using Chambers Wharf as a ‘drive site’ for the tunnel. This will mean six years of continuous works on the site and cause untold disruption to residents.

The most shocking thing about the decision is that the Planning Inspector agreed with the concerns raised by the local community and councillors and recommended to the Government that the tunnelling direction should be reversed (which would minimise disruption arising at the Chambers Wharf site). But the Ministers overturned their recommendation and have approved the original plans.

As a local councillor, I’m outraged that Ministers have ignored the recommendation of the inspector after they were successfully persuaded of the case to reverse the tunnelling direction. I will be working with the Council and with Simon Hughes MP over the coming weeks to explore what can be done to challenge this.

Anyone who wants to read the full Government response can do so . I have also copied the relevant section below.

Chambers Wharf

108. The ExA concluded that the Applicant had not justified the use of Chambers Wharf as a drive site, which weighed against making the Order (ER 18.65). The Secretaries of State disagree with the ExA and conclude, on balance, that the selection of Chambers Wharf as a drive site is justified. This is for the following reasons.

109. The Secretaries of State consider that the intensity and duration of impacts on residential receptors during the construction period (six years with 33 months of night time working) (ER 17.154), weighs significantly against making the Order (ER 17.186,17.196 and 18.71). However, the Applicant has offered a wide-ranging package of measures which would substantially mitigate these adverse impacts and which are secured by requirements CHAWF1, PW15 and by unilateral obligations in favour of LB Southwark (ER 17.157, 17.169-17.175, 17.179-17.181 and 18.81). The Secretaries of State note the ExA’s reference to the Applicant’s statement on further opportunities to 22explore additional mitigation measures through the Community Liaison Working Group (ER 17.182). These were not before the ExA and are not secured in the Order, or a matter which in any way informs the Secretaries of State’s decision.

110. As set out in paragraph 74 of this letter the Secretaries of State consider that the residual impacts on quality of life and health from noise associated with the proposed development are less than significant. This reflects the fact that the Applicant has offered a wide-ranging package of mitigation measures which would also substantially mitigate the adverse impacts on the community at Chambers Wharf.

111. On the basis of their approach to the first NPS aim on noise the ExA concluded that the selection of Chambers Wharf as a drive site was not justified and that they needed to look at alternative drive sites (ER 17.209-17.274) to see whether significant adverse impacts from noise and vibration could be avoided. However, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 69-73 of this letter, the Secretaries of State conclude that significant adverse noise impacts at Chambers Wharf have been avoided. The Secretaries of State therefore conclude that there is no need for them to consider whether an amended scheme could achieve similar benefits but with less harm, and therefore any further consideration of a reversed drive strategy and alternative drive sites is unnecessary. Further weighing in the balance is the significant weight given by the Secretaries of State to the opportunity to wholly use river transport at Chambers Wharf (ER 17.288), complying with the test at NPS paragraph 4.13.10. Further, for the reasons set out in this letter as a whole, the Secretaries of State consider that this Application accords with the NPS and that the harm is not such that it outweighs the benefits of the application.

112. Overall, the Secretaries of State consider that the tests in the NPS in relation to site selection have been met and that, whilst the impacts at Chambers Wharf will be adverseand of long duration, on balance, the Order should be made with Chambers Wharf as a drive site.