Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
With less than a week to run on LTC consultation, here's a step-by-step guide
Time is running short if you’re planning on taking part in what might be the final consultation on the proposed Lower Thames Crossing.
The Local Refinement Consultation set up by National Highways concludes at 11.59pm on Monday, June 20.
We highly recommend submitting your views as the more responses received by NH the better.
Our friends at the Thames Crossing Action Group say: “You can of course respond using the National Highways consultation response form, but please bear in mind that NH have designed the form to get the answers/feedback they want.
“If you do use it, please read the wording carefully!”
TCAG suggests instead giving your views either via email or post, highlighting that “you don’t have to use the response form”.
The matter is of course complex and if you would like a helping hand you might be interested in TCAG’s step-by-step guide to the consultation. You can see that here
CPRE Kent believes there are many problems with the crossing proposals and it is disappointing that the NH consultation does not address any of them.
Those issues include:
1. The A2 is to be reduced to two lanes both London- and coastbound – four lanes already at full capacity during commuter hours.
2. The Lower Thames Crossing is the wrong solution at the wrong location. On completion – in 2030! – the misery of the Dartford crossing will continue. Will lorries prefer this shorter northerly route, saving them fuel costs? It is predicted that the LTC will only reduce the Dartford crossing traffic by some 4 per cent.
3. Congestion at Dartford should be addressed without further delay. It is caused by the ‘stopping’ of all traffic in order to escort large tankers and many European lorries through the obsolete tunnels. This is effectively a red traffic light on the M25 causing ‘domino accidents’. The LTC does not resolve this problem.
4. The decision to build LTC was based on the promise of private funding. It is now to be publicly funded at a cost of £8.2 billion and rising. The Queen Elizabeth Bridge cost £120 million in 1991 (Highways England, now National Highways, rejected a relatively small cost of installing ‘wind supports’ as those installed in most bridges). This would not equate to £8.2 billion, even with inflation.
5. The LTC is being planned as an all lanes running expressway – a smart motorway by another name. This means no hard shoulder and as yet no reliable danger-detection system.
- You can order a consultation pack here (alternatively phone 0300 123 5000 or email info@lowerthamescrossing.co.uk)
- The National Highways dedicated LTC web page is here
- For more on the LTC, see here
- To read CPRE Kent’s response to the spring 2020 LTC consultation, click here
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
- 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
