Filter

Lower Thames Crossing

Relevant representations (registration comments)

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

Showing 201 to 225 of 1148 representations, newest first.

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

  • Michael Stanway

    I am interested on how on earth you can carry out a zero carbon construction of a major project of this size.

  • Mr Graham Grice

    I believe that the new crossing is in the wrong place and will only lead to further congestion, pollution and accidents. Moreover, I am confident in saying that the location has been chosen to make... Read more

  • Mr Shaun Barrell

    1. Traffic pollution, noise and light pollution when complete. 2. The destruction of millions of cubic meters of land and with it, the environment it sustains. 3. The disruption to the people of... Read more

  • Mrs Gill Stembridge

    I am very pleased that the Lower Thames Crossing has received Planning Permission. The recent increase in Traffic in the lanes of Kent makes it imperative that the Trunk roads are able to cope with... Read more

  • Mrs Veronica Washington

    The main points of my objection are: 1. The degradation of air quality, estimated 6.6million tonnes of carbon emissions 2. Biodiversity and woodland targets for the surrounding areas of East Tilbury... Read more

  • Peel Ports Ltd (Peel Ports Ltd)

    As the Port Authority closest to the Southern side of the project, we are very keen to make sure the Port of Sheerness is represented to support all aspects of the Lower Thames Crossing and the local... Read more

  • Road Haulage Association (RHA) Ltd (Road Haulage Association (RHA) Ltd)

    We support the Lower Thames Crossing project as a vital piece of infrastructure for road resilience and contingency planning when other routes are unable to be used. We believe it will have economical... Read more

  • Robert Oliver

    As a resident of Thurrock I object to this development on the grounds that it will lead to more traffic through my borough and thereby a degradation in air quality.

  • Steven Troy

    I think that option C would be a waste of money and would only elevate the traffic congestion at the Dartford crossing by 14% and that is because most of the traffic (86%)travels around London so I... Read more

  • Stantec (Stantec) on behalf of Thames Enterprise Park Limited (Thames Enterprise Park Limited)

    Please see attached.

  • Upminster & Cranham Residents' Association (Upminster & Cranham Residents' Association)

    We represent the residents of Upminster and Cranham. Our representation will highlight the potential downside effects for our residents of the new roads linking to the Lower Thames Crossing both in... Read more

  • William Jones

    I am concerned that a massive infrastructure and tunneling project like this Lower Thames Crossing does not include a rail tunnel. Linking the rail networks of the east of England with the south east... Read more

  • Absolute Action Ltd (Absolute Action Ltd)

    will be in relation to :- degree of potential disruption to existing road traffic movement in N Kent whether new roads & tunnels being planned are of sufficient capacity for future usage how long the... Read more

  • Andrew Thompson

    In the first instance, I am in favour of the project for a lower Thames crossing point. My main objection and fear, is that the project will run over time and over budget. I sincerely trust that the... Read more

  • Ashley Roger Hambridge

    I am an interested party because I live near the Dartford Tunnels and their various approach roads and am heartily fed up with the chaos caused to the surrounding area when there is a problem at the... Read more

  • Brian Lishak

    This project is essential for the future and I wish to participate in its development. I am an affected person and an interested party.

  • Colin Randall

    In my humble opinion I think that the proposed project is to close to the QE2 bridge and will create more problems than it will solve

  • ABDS Ltd (ABDS Ltd) on behalf of Cranham Golf Course Ltd (Cranham Golf Course Ltd )

    It is accepted that Annex B of document 4.1 (Statement of Reasons) includes Cranham Golf Course Ltd (No 210) and Cranham Solar Ltd (No 211) and that the document schedules negotiations that have taken... Read more

  • John Green

    The LTC is not fit for purpose. The pollution in this area is way too high. The junction where the LTC joins the M25 is to close to the junction of the A127 also very close to junction of the A12... Read more

  • Leslie Newell

    This is a vital development which will obviously have upsides and downsides. It seems that environmental issues are being taken into account but there will of course, be some things that upset people.... Read more

  • Melburg (Melburg)

    Melburg have various land holdings within the area and are interested to see how these may be impacted by the ongoing proposals

  • Michael Marlow

    Insufficient attention has been made to the environmental issues concerning this development

  • Smart Planning Ltd (Smart Planning Ltd) on behalf of Mr David Barron (Mr David Barron)

    My client is principally concerned about the impact on their residential amenity of noise emanating from the development and the impact that the development will have on the value of their property.

  • Mr Ian Black

    My principal objections to this project are the 1. the impact on the local community and the environment 2. the amount of greenbelt being taken 3. the Tilbury Viaduct section which has not been shown... Read more

  • Owen Berkeley-Hill

    I am concerned that there is no provision to link the crossing to the M20. I have said this in previous submissions. Only providing more crossing capacity is not enough if the traffic then pours onto... Read more