Representation by Anne Robinson
- Date submitted
- 22 January 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I strongly object to the Lower Thames Crossing, which should be scrapped, for the following reasons. 1. A proper full and recent assessment of the problem has not been made. It has been 14 years since strategic alternatives were assessed (DfT 2009), since when only road-based solutions have been considered. The current situation is so very different – climate and nature emergency, ongoing air pollution and increased car dependency leading to poor public health, the adoption of the natural capital approach and the requirement for a scheme to meet strategic and national objectives – from 2009 that the DfT should go back to the drawing board and assess the problems according to the WebTAG guidance, and in order to meet the requirements of the Treasury’s Green Book. 2. The scheme does not meet its objectives and is not the solution to the traffic and transport issues of the area - it does not address the problems of the Dartford Crossing. 3. It would induce more traffic, creating more air and noise pollution, and more climate emissions. Instead, traffic should be demand managed to reduce it, not only for climate reasons but also to improve the environment and people’s health and wellbeing. The demand management considered for the scheme is confined to a localised charging scheme – what is needed is a national road user charging scheme that would address all journeys on all roads. 4. The increase of 6.6Mt carbon emissions is particularly obscene. We are in a climate emergency and need to urgently reduce emissions. On those grounds alone this scheme should be rejected. 5. It would remove land from agricultural use - thousands of acres of farmland would be lost and important habitats such as woodland, ancient woodland and veteran trees, and hedgerows, would be destroyed or harmed leading to a devastating effect on wildlife. Land is a finite irreplaceable asset in the UK. It is both natural capital and strategic open space, which supports multiple ecosystem services - agriculture to produce food, access for recreation, wildlife habitats, resilience to climate change and reduction of flood risk, and sequestration of carbon. Such ecosystem services are critical to urban areas which have higher vulnerability to climate change due to their lack of habitats. New roads and their traffic reduce the permeability of the countryside for wildlife, further fragment habitats, increase injury and death for species trying to cross the roads and pollute air and water. 6. It would harm the openness of the Green Belt, encouraging sprawling development in isolated pockets of land. There are no very special circumstances to allow this harm to occur. 7. The scheme is a complete waste money and leads to lost opportunities - £10bn could be invested into reducing road freight and transferring it to rail or sea; and into reducing car journeys and switching them to public transport walking and cycling.