Filter
Lower Thames Crossing

Relevant representations (registration comments)

Search by the person or group making the submission or the content of the submission.

Showing 1001 to 1100 of 1148 representations, newest first.

Results per page View 25 results per page | View 50 results per page | 100

  • Shoosmiths LLP (Shoosmiths LLP) on behalf of Christopher Scott Padfield (Christopher Scott Padfield)

    This relevant representation is submitted by Shoosmiths LLP on behalf of Christopher Scott Padfield, S&J Padfield & Partners LLP and S&J Padfield Estates LLP (together, our “client”), the owners of... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Clare Baker

    I object to the scheme. Do not increase traffic and carbon emissions in a climate emergency.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Colette Hammond

    I am opposed to this scheme on the grounds of it's environmental impact. Impact on communities. Pollution and financial costs. This is not the way forward for, the health and wellbeing. future... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Colin Ettinger

    In order to protect our climate from further devastation, and meet our Net Zero goals, it is vital that we cut greenhouse emissions. The government’s Transport & Environment Statistics 2022 state that... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • ConnctedCities ltd (ConnctedCities ltd)

    That the crossing does not include a rail link. At present rail carries 11% of passenger miles, but produces on 3% of transport GHGs. The TPI publicatioin Net Zero Transport states that in order to... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • CPRE Essex (CPRE Essex)

    CPRE Essex is an independent charity that works closely alongside other CPRE branches, as well as the national CPRE organisation. As such, the geographic focus of our comments relate in the main to... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • CPRE Kent (CPRE Kent)

    CPRE Kent OBJECTS to the Lower Thames Crossing project. This project is fundamentally flawed, will not deliver the benefits it promises, and will inevitably cause significant environmental damage.... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Cycling UK (Cycling UK)

    Cycling UK is the national cycling charity, with over 70,000 members across the UK, including members and members groups living or based near to location of the proposed Lower Thames Crossing (LTC).... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Daniel Smith

    The lower Thames crossing is deeply concerning and should not be granted permission. In 2019 the government signed legislation to commit the UK to a zero carbon emission based economy by 2050.... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Daren Thomas

    Cost, huge amount already spent and a vast amount still to spend Years of disruption during works Destruction of local ancient woodlands Increased pollution and noise. Devaluation of local properties... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Dartford Borough Council (Dartford Borough Council)

    Below is Dartford Borough Council’s Relevant Representation and confirmation of the Council’s registration as an Interested Party. A letter copy of the Relevant Representation will also be sent via... Read more

    Submitted by: Local authorities
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • David Boyd

    I strongly object to this proposal as it would not reduce traffic congestion and would cause significant environmental damage, including air pollution, destruction of wildlife habitats and climate... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • David Martindale

    As someone who works both in London and throughout North Kent I am extremely concerned at the affect this will have on traffic on both the local roads and arteries such as the A2/M2. The A2/M2 is... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • David Morton

    My primary concerns are as follows: 1) Carbon budgets and net zero: It beggars belief that in a time of climate emergency and efforts to mitigate climate change, this scheme is being proposed. The... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • David Shilston

    I intend to make a submission that deals with the environmental impact of the Lower Thames Crossing scheme.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Dawn Sibley

    I object against this

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Dee Noble

    #LowerThamesCrossing Just two days left to stand up for nature If approved, the Lower Thames Crossing proposal will have harmful implications for wildlife and our landscape. But there are still two... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Dennis English

    I am concerned about the following: * It doesn't solve the problems it is intended to solve * it induces extra traffic, making things worse in the medium to long term * Lack of provisions for active... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Derek Gunner Parkinson

    I would like to make my representation on the facts that A) The wrong option for the crossing was made. Option C is most damaging for our borough and would have been better to be built further out... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Browne Jacobson LLP (Browne Jacobson LLP) on behalf of Emergency Services and Safety Partners Steering Group (Emergency Services and Safety Partners Steering Group)

    Please see attached.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023
    Contains attachment(s)

  • Emma Edwards

    I live very close to the proposed site of the tunnel and so would like to register as an interested party. I am concerned about noise and pollution during the construction phase and air pollution and... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Emma Lawrence

    I have objected to an older version of the scheme and wish to do so again. There is no justification for an expenditure of this magnitude on a scheme that does not meet its stated objectives. In... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Emma Nicholson

    I strongly oppose NH plans for the LTC. We are in a climate emergency and the emissions from this project are forecast to be 6.6 million tonnes. Wales has just suspended all roadbuilding projects as a... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Enovert South Limited (Enovert South Limited)

    This representation is made on behalf of Enovert South Limited to confirm that, subject to finalisation of commercial terms, Enovert South Limited have reached agreement with National Highways to use... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Environment Agency (Environment Agency)

    Environment Agency Relevant Representations document has been sent to lowerthamescrossing@planninginspectorate.gov.uk

    Submitted by: Other statutory consultees
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023
    Contains attachment(s)

  • Federation of Small Businesses (Federation of Small Businesses)

    As the UK’s largest business support group, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) is the voice of small businesses and the self-employed. With circa 160,000 members across the UK, we have over... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Gemma Benton

    I object to the Lower Thames Crossing proposal. The new NMUs will cause a lot of problems with unauthorised access and anti social problems. We already get off road motorbikes, quads and 4x4s... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Gerald Kells

    I am writing to oppose this proposal. I do not believe this is the right approach to addressing traffic in the Dartford Tunnel, I am concerned about on the impact on the landscape and biodiversity,... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Gina Armstrong

    This project is not fit for purpose, fails to meet the scheme objectives and will be hugely destructive and harmful. It will destroy and impact communities, homes, lives, health and wellbeing. It will... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • WSP (WSP ) on behalf of Global Mutual ( Global Mutual)

    On behalf of our client, Global Mutual (c/o Lakeside Centre Limited), we write to register as an Interested Party. Global Mutual have been the asset managers of Lakeside Shopping Centre since 2020... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Graham Glombek

    I am against the LTC project regarding the route on the north side of the Thames which affects me personally. 1. On environmental grounds, it will have a detrimental affect on a long swathe of... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Gravesham Borough Council (Gravesham Borough Council)

    Gravesham Borough Council PINS Reference: TR010032 Relevant Representation Gravesham Borough Council has consistently opposed the Lower Thames Crossing on an alignment east of Gravesend due to... Read more

    Submitted by: Local authorities
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Great Warley Conservation Society (Great Warley Conservation Society)

    Construction traffic through the village which has a weight restriction Routes that construction traffic is approved to use Access to the works site during construction Times that construction work... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Hannah Stewart

    I have serious concerns about the impact on wildlife and habitats in Essex, including: - Biodiversity loss, particularly water voles, reptiles and rare insects. - Damage to and fragmentation of... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Helen Fooks

    I live in Riverview Park and am extremely concerned that the project is failing to meet the scheme objectives. 6.6 million tonnes of carbon emissions is not compliant with net zero and damaging to the... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Helen Martin

    Over capacity by the time it is finished Destruction of ancient woodland Waste of public money Increase in traffic in the area therefore increase in pollution Smart motorway design dangerous

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Helen Whately MP

    Dear Planning Inspectorate,  I welcome this public consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing. Whilst the LTC does not pass directly through my constituency of Faversham and Mid Kent I am an interested... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Hilary Davies

    I wish to make a representation concerning the assessment of the impact of the Lower Thames Crossing upon its immediate proposed environment. This is with especial reference to its impact on marine... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Historic England (Historic England)

    Will be submitted by email to the main inbox in letter form.

    Submitted by: Other statutory consultees
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023
    Contains attachment(s)

  • Ian Noble

    Native woodland is irreplaceable so should be.preserved for future generations

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Imogen Slater

    ? Increase in carbon emissions (around 6.6 million tonnes) ? Waste of over £10bn+, not value for money, false economy as other spending would be needed as direct result ? Loss and impact to thousands... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • J Dand

    Significant errors/incorrect assumptions have been made throughout the application process.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • J Whitehead

    Concerns regarding pollution, increased traffic and plant on over- stretched roads. Today A13 by Dartford Slip Road there is a seven mile tailback . Every day there are delays and accidents- building... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Jackie Wells

    The new lower Thames crossing will damage irrevocably valuable and precious green belt land in a distinctly rural area. The pollution from vehicles, especially heavy goods vehicles, will have an... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • James Mullan

    This is a huge, not well thought out and poorly designed waste of money that will not improve the issues at the Dartford Crossing only make things awful for anyone living in Gravesend.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • James Willis

    Dear Inspector/ Minister of state I have grown up in this area Gravesend side of Thames gateway when I cannot afford a car feel compete isolated from neighbours in Essex this scheme does very little... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Jean Norton

    I am very concerned about the increase in emissions that this scheme will cause. I am concerned about the implications that this has for climate change and for meeting our national targets on climate... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Jill Barnett

    The proposed Thames River Crossing scheme is not fit for purpose. If it is ever built, it will not solve traffic problems in the South East, and will potentially create more. The cost of this project... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Jim Harkins

    Significant air pollution in the form of NEE ie fine particulates from the road/tyre/brake dust and does not future-proof the environment up and downstream A clean and environmentally sustainable... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Jo Kemp

    The proposed LTC would would destroy and impact homes, lives, health and wellbeing, greenbelt, woodland (inc ancient woodland), agricultural land (inc grade 1 listed land), wildlife and habitats,... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • John Conway

    This project is a waste of upwards of ten billion pounds of public money. It will increase the traffic that travels across the Thames, increasing carbon emissions and the emission of particulates from... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • John Harrison

    Noise pollution Air Pollutants Wild animal conservation Noise from night time construction at night.Pile driving ect

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • John Stewart

    I object to this project. I support policies which reduce overall levels of traffic. It will not do this.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Joshua Kay

    Opposed to the lower thames crossing due to the harmful impact it will have on local residents of the area these include: Increased pollution in an already heavily polluted area Increased noise... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Julia Broad

    1. The project will increase traffic leading to an increase in emissions which is not in line with government’s Net Zero strategy. 2. It will not solve the problem of congestion at the Dartford... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Julia Guest

    I object to this project on the basis that it can only increase carbon output in its construction and use.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Julie Cooke

    This will be a disaster for the wildlife etc in the are. Having attended public events residents of the Stanford-le-Hope end will not be able to return home direct from the crossing without going... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Julie Johnson

    Dear Sirs, I am concerned on how this tunnel will affect my and my family’s physical health with noise and pollution,with the traffic increase. And CO2 emissions I also believe it will severely affect... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Julie Wetherall

    Very briefly, my concerns regarding a new Thames Crossing include issues with destruction of the local environment, whether this is the best place for a crossing, pollution concerns for the area... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Kate Geary

    I object to this road project on two grounds: it’s destructive local impacts and it’s impacts on climate change.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Kate Styles

    I object for the following reasons: Increased traffic contributing to increased emissions and the emissions from its construction when we need to achieve 68% reductions in UK carbon emissions by 2030... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Kent County Council (Kent County Council)

    Please see attached.

    Submitted by: Local authorities
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023
    Contains attachment(s)

  • Kimberley Richardson

    This solution will not decrease traffic at the Dartford Tunnel. It will increase traffic through sole street which is already dangerous with no street infrastructure. It will rip through an AONB.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Laura Blake

    I am strongly opposed to the proposed £10billion+ Lower Thames Crossing. We are living in a time of climate emergency, we should not be pushing ahead with projects that are so destructive and harmful.... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Linda Beard

    I am concerned that the Lower Thames Crossing scheme fails to protect habitats and protected and priority species from harm, and that it fails to mitigate or compensate adequately for harm that cannot... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Liz Brandon-Jones

    A new Thames crossing will have a destructive effect on the biodiversity of this river and its river valley.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • London Borough of Havering (London Borough of Havering)

    Please see attached.

    Submitted by: Local authorities
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023
    Contains attachment(s)

  • Lucy Bubb

    As a frequent traveller on both the M25 and the local roads around Thurrock, I am extremely concerned about the proposed plans. I have seen no evidence that the problems currently experienced on and... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Lucy Grant

    As a local resident and an employee based as Tilbury Docks this road will have a major effect on my lifestyle personally and professionally. My journey times to work will be increased as bd become... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Lynda Kay

    Loss of greenbelt Damage to the environment and wildlife Unacceptable pollution levels Not solving the problems at the existing Dartford crossing Years of disruption to communities along the route No... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Maidstone Borough Council (Maidstone Borough Council )

    Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) has regularly engaged with National Highways throughout the pre-application stage of the Lower Thames Crossing Development Consent Order (DCO). This includes... Read more

    Submitted by: Local authorities
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Malcolm McKee

    My personal view is that insufficient assessment has been made to understand the long term needs of the transportation system with the uk. This project along with a number of others seem to to be... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Pinsent Masons LLP (Pinsent Masons LLP) on behalf of Malthurst South East Limited (Malthurst South East Limited)

    Malthurst South East Limited (MSEL) is part of Motor Fuel Group and is the owner and operator of Cobham Services petrol filling station (PFS). MSEL is the owner and occupier of plots 06-175 and 06-196... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Mark Coleman

    The proposed new Thames crossing is a waste of money because it invests in in fossil fuel architecture. It will lead to a great amount of Carbon emissions, and increase the effect of climate change... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Mark Costin

    The new crossing is in completely the wrong place. It is too close to the existing crossing. Placing the the crossing closer to the mouth of the Thames I.e. further to the east, will allow for traffic... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Mark Sullivan MRTPI

    There is no public transport connection between Kent and Essex that provides a viable and attractive alternative to the use of private cars. Buses using the Dartford crossing and the Gravesend-Tilbury... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Mark Warnett

    The purported benefits of the scheme do not justify the harm to the environment through carbon footprint and contribution to climate change, loss of and harm to habitats including legally protected... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Martin Walker

    Summary I am in favour of the Lower Thames Crossing Project 1. Impact to my family for personal & business use due to traffic congestion & accidents 2. Increasing the opportunity for commercial... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Mary Clare Martin

    The Lower Thames Crossing will be hugely expensive (£10 billion plus), at a time of great hardship for many people. There is huge opposition from local people, including from Gravesham Council and... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Matthew Jackson

    By National Highways very own figures The LTC does not reduce existing A282/m25 congestion enough to make a difference within the Thurrock / Dartford region. The proposed LTC does not tackle existing... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Maureen Hattam

    We have so much pollution within our local area already and between the tunnel and the pits being dug Stanford Le Hope side of the tunnel we are in danger of falling into a black whole.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Knight Frank (Knight Frank) on behalf of Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime)

    Knight Frank act on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), in relation to the Metropolitan Police Service Training Centre (MPSTC)... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Michael Anthony Tarbard

    (1) I am concerned at the potential loss of green belt land due to the building of the crossing and new road system. (2) Thurrock already has a very high level of pollution and creating this crossing... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Barton Willmore, now Stantec (Barton Willmore, now Stantec) on behalf of Morzine Limited c/o Graham Stark (Morzine Limited c/o Graham Stark)

    Thames Oilport (TOP) forms part of the Employment Allocation of the former Coryton Oil Refinery pursuant to the Core Strategy Proposals Map. This land was also designated as one of the Borough’s four... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd (Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd) on behalf of Mrs J. Carver (Mrs J. Carver)

    Mrs Carver owns the freehold of (Redacted) , a Grade II listed residential property with ancillary buildings consented for Class E(d) indoor sport, recreation or fitness use, Class E(g)(i) office use... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023
    Contains attachment(s)

  • Mrs Nicola Costin

    I strongly object to the new crossing because it will bring even greater levels of traffic to an area which is already saturated with cars and frequently gridlocked. Any traffic incident causes the... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Mrs Susan Lindley

    I am a resident of Shorne, which is east of Gravesend. This is a personal opinion registration but please note that I am a Parish Councillor in Shorne (chair of the Planning and Highways Committee)... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Ms Alison M Chisholm

    This proposed project flies in the face of the Government's commitments to tackling climate change, reducing our emissions and aiming to reach net zero. It would result in greater emissions its... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Neil Harrod

    If built the crossing would actually increase traffic in the area and in turn, there would be a significant rise in carbon emissions. Obversely there will also be an increase in carbon emissions and... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Nick Jukes

    I object fully to the scheme. It is unacceptable to encourage and increase traffic levels and CO2 emissions during this climate crisis and in contravention of local and national planning policy. The... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Paul Cole

    The crossing as planned, per Highways England's own modelling, does not resolve the traffic problems at the existing Dartford crossing - one of the stated objectives of the scheme. Furthermore, the... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Paul Gill

    I object to this scheme on the principle that increased accommodation of vehicular traffic is demonstrably linked to the increase of wider levels of traffic, and this runs counter to the demands of... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Pauline Clifton

    The Lower Thames Crossing will have a huge detrimental effect on local residents, the landscape, ancient woodland and wildlife through air and noise pollution. I do not believe that National Highways... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Peter Caton

    I object to the Lower Thames Crossing on the following grounds. It is not necessary. The current crossing is only seriously blocked for a few days each year. The impact of these events could be... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Peter Nash

    Air quality Traffic whilst being built What happens to householders in Thong whilst being built

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Peter Slowe

    I am cncerned about the potential environmental damage

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Pinsent Masons LLP (Pinsent Masons LLP) on behalf of Port of Tilbury London Limited (Port of Tilbury London Limited)

    The Port of Tilbury London Limited's representation has been sent by email to the Planning Inspectorate.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023
    Contains attachment(s)

  • Quentin Daniel

    The proposed LTC would be hugely destructive and harmful, it would destroy and impact homes, lives, health and wellbeing, greenbelt, woodland (inc ancient woodland), agricultural land (inc grade 1... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Ray Styles

    AT TWO PACKED PUBLIC MEETINGS THE MASS OF THE CROWD WHERE AGAINST ON THE GROUND IT IS A SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST . OLD MOVED GROUNDS CAN'T BE AS THEY WERE BEFORE UP ROOTING THE ROOTS .

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023

  • Rebecca Lush

    I object to the DCO application for this scheme for the following reasons. * The scheme would increase traffic and carbon emissions by 6.6 MtCO2e which is unacceptable in a climate crisis. We need to... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 24 February 2023