Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Say No to the LTC!
After George Osborne’s ‘Autumn Statement’ last week, it is safe to say that a new Lower Thames Crossing has been slapped back on the agenda by a Government determined to ruin all our beautiful countryside with their desperate attempts to put the economy back on track.
CPRE Protect Kent had been somewhat hopeful that this shockingly ill-advised scheme had been put on the back-burner or scrapped altogether as KCC was unlikely to be able to fund the development itself, however unfortunately the Government has gone ‘once more unto the breach’ and offered the large part of financing itself.
This means that a new crossing is heavily back on the agenda, and we at CPRE Protect Kent are extremely concerned. There have been three possible locations mooted at this stage, with the Government promising a full public consultation in early 2013. Although that sounds a long time away, we must bear in mind that we’re almost in 2012 now, so it could well be less than two years before building (and all the associated problems) commence.
These plans are coming from a Government who promised that once the current crossing had paid for itself, the tolls on the existing crossings would be scrapped. Yes, CPRE Protect Kent does indeed acknowledge that there is excessive congestion at the current Thames crossings, but we feel that since there was a promise to remove the tolls, this should be fulfilled. There is already a tacit acknowledgement that removing the tolls enhances the flow of traffic as when there is an incident, this is exactly what happens and it manages to clear the congestion.
Why won’t KCC and the Government simply remove the tolls, thus negating the need for another Lower Thames Crossing which will be incredibly damaging to the environment. It is the only sensible option.
We really do require public support to stop this awful proposal, so please consider joining CPRE Protect Kent if you’re not already a member, and help us to keep Kent beautiful.
- 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
