Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Application for Lower Thames Crossing DCO delayed by huge response to public consultation
A staggering total of almost 29,000 responses to the public consultation has caused Highways England to delay its planning application for the Lower Thames Crossing.
The second tranche of consultation on the £6.8 billion road scheme pulled in 28,493 responses, meaning HE needs more time to analyse any new information and views.
Chris Taylor, HE director of complex infrastructure, wrote in a project update: “We’re now considering the consultation responses in detail as we continue to improve the design of the project.
“We’ll also be using the information gathered from our ground investigations programme to ensure that our project is delivered in a way that has the smallest possible impact on the nearby communities and environment.
“To do this effectively, we will need more time to develop our planning application (Development Consent Order application), which we now plan to submit in summer 2020.
“This, however, does not impact the target road-opening in 2027 as we’ve done more work to our schedule to speed up the construction programme.”
Almost 15,000 people are reported to have visited some 60 LTC consultation events, while many thousands more got involved with the scheme online.
Work began in July on more than 700 tests in Kent and Essex aimed at identifying what the 14.5-mile road, including tunnelling, will be built on and through.
Project director Tim Jones said: “The complex programme of tests and surveys we’re embarking on here will enable us to better understand the ground conditions, and help us build it safely, in a way that protects the environment while keeping costs down.
“This preliminary work will help us to give the clearest possible picture of what will be involved in building the new crossing when we apply for planning consent and help ensure our construction programme can get the new road open for 2027.
“Our priority right now is to carry out the ground investigations in a way that will have the smallest possible impact on the environment and nearby communities.”
Monday, September 9, 2019
- A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
- There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
- There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.
The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:
- There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
- A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
- Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
- Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.
Concerns about the rush to submit the plan
The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.
As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.
Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.
Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.
The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.
Further information
