Last Day to Object to Option C – but Option A still on the table!
The consultation on the proposed Lower Thames Crossing closes on 24th March. Please make sure you respond, even if you have signed a petition, it is usually better to have lots of individual responses to support the weight of opinion. For more information and to complete the consultation click HERE. The consultation is a series of questions, but there are spaces for comments. Below are the comments included in my own response which may be helpful. This is simply picking up on some salient points, but can be amended, added to or simplified as appropriate. I oppose Option C along with variant routes 2, 3 and 4 on the following grounds:
- It would have a significant negative impact on biodiversity and destruction of ecological sites and conservation areas, along with listed buildings, and is therefore unacceptable.
- It would devastate hundreds of acres of Green Belt as well as destroying a Fen, villages and a wildlife Hospital in Thurrock
- It would destroy whole villages, ancient woodland, heritage sites and wildlife habitats. Once concreted over it will be gone forever.
- The additional traffic would create significant increase in congestion in the Upminster & Cranham area
- The increased level of traffic close to residential areas in Upminster and Cranham will lead to additional noise, environmental harm and lead to poorer air quality, thus affecting people’s health
My preferred option is an additional crossing (a bored tunnel) alongside the existing Crossing, as set out in Option A, on the following grounds:
- In the previous consultation (2013) Option C received the highest number of objections (2,000+) while Option A received less than 200 objections
- The Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick MacLoughlin, recently confirmed that Option A was still a viable alternative and had not been ruled out
- The cost of Option A is £1.6billion compared with £4.3billion for Option C, this provides better value for money and a lower capital cost
- Impact on Green Belt and the environment would be far less
- Updating the Dartford crossing would be more economical, environmentally responsible and far less disruptive
In summary, the consultation process is fundamentally flawed as there is no mention or opportunity to give Option A as the preferred choice. I therefore do not support Option C for the reasons given above but would support a crossing (a bored tunnel) alongside the existing crossing as set out in Option A.
The full consultation document can be viewed here.
Cll Clarence Barrett on behalf of the Upminster & Cranham Residents’ Association