Filter
Lower Thames Crossing

Relevant representations (registration comments)

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

Showing 951 to 1000 of 1148 representations, newest first.

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

  • Philip Leonard Edgar

    No sea wall to prevent flooding where proposed route is going

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Winckworth Sherwood LLP (Winckworth Sherwood LLP) on behalf of Port of London Authority (Port of London Authority)

    1. The Port of London Authority (“PLA”) is the statutory harbour authority for the tidal Thames (the “River”). Its statutory functions include responsibility for conservancy, including dredging and... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Punam Chada

    1. Why is the proposal going ahead if it is not going to reduce the required level of traffic away from the Dartford crossing. You have quoted only 4% when much more is needed. 2. You are proposing... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Richard Worn

    I have serious concerns about the impact of the Lower Thames Crossing on wildlife and habitats in Essex , including: • Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. • Damage to,... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Birketts LLP (Birketts LLP) on behalf of Runwood Homes Limited (Runwood Homes Limited)

    OUTLINE OF MAIN POINTS OF OBJECTION TO LOWER THAMES CROSSING 1. Unacceptable impacts on Whitecroft Care Home, Stanford Road, Orsett, Thurrock, and its residents and employees, due to the magnitude of... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Birketts LLP (Birketts LLP) on behalf of Runwood Properties Limited (Runwood Properties Limited)

    OUTLINE OF MAIN POINTS OF OBJECTION TO LOWER THAMES CROSSING 1. Unacceptable impacts on Whitecroft Care Home, Stanford Road, Orsett, Thurrock, and its residents and employees, due to the magnitude of... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Sam Wollen

    We do not want the new road to come near Brandon groves for health and environmental reasons to the people that live on the estate as all wildlife around

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Sarah Daniels

    Objection to Location Objection to Noise Pollution Objection to Air Pollution Objection to Loss of Green Belt Objection to poor maps of the proposed plans that exclude majority of the housing in South... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Sarah Jane Scrace

    The environmental impact on the area will far outweigh any benefits. The years it will take to build causing chaos will double the environmental impact in the area and then it will bring more polygon... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Sarah Lovell

    Main points I intend to raise in relation to the application are: Would not solve the problems suffered due to the Dartford Crossing and be over capacity before it’s finished. Lack of adequate... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Sevenoaks District Council (Sevenoaks District Council)

    Lower Thames Crossing Pre Examination Representation Thank you for notifying Sevenoaks District Council on the formal notification of acceptance for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) Development Consent... Read more

    Submitted by: Local authorities
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Shorne Parish Council (Shorne Parish Council)

    Shorne Parish is located east of Gravesend, a “reverse-L” shape extending from the middle of the A2 in the south to the middle of the Thames in the north. It includes several areas of ancient... Read more

    Submitted by: Parish councils
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Steve Hackett

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

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Suami Rocha

    In a climate emergency, there’s no justification for going ahead with this project. The data on this is clear, our planet can’t cope with this and it’s going to increase our dependence on fossil fuels... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Susan Binns

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

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Susan Fitzjohn

    I am concerned about the impact on traffic on the M2/A2 between M25 interchange at Dartford and going down to the Bluebell Hill interchange, and beyond. The proposed tunnel will increase the amount of... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Susan Hammock

    I last submitted consultation comments in September 2021 and my concerns still hold true today. Benefit - I do not agree that a crossing in this location would ease congestion at Dartford. The A2... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Susan Higgins

    I believe the annihilation of the countryside is despicable and the estimated costs far outweigh the benefits. The new roads will increase CO2 pollution, reduce wildlife habitat.

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Gateley Hamer Limited (Gateley Hamer Limited) on behalf of Tarmac Building Products Limited (Tarmac Building Products Limited)

    See attached

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023
    Contains attachment(s)

  • Thames Chase Trust (Thames Chase Trust)

    The response provided by the Trust on 19th December 2018 at 16:17:08 for the original statutory consultation remains valid (Response ID ANON-5C4S-Y8ZS-W), particularly in relation to the wider... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Thames Estuary Growth Board (Thames Estuary Growth Board)

    The Thames Estuary Growth Board fully endorses the Lower Thames Crossing application for Development Consent. The Thames Estuary Growth Board combines private and public sector representatives with a... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Holmes and Hills Solicitors LLP (Holmes and Hills Solicitors LLP) on behalf of The owner/Occupiers of Foxburrows (The owner/Occupiers of Foxburrows)

    Holmes and Hills LLP is instructed by [Redacted] who are the owner-occupiers of Foxburrows [Redacted]. Part of their property falls within the Lower Thames Crossing DCO Order limits. Our client has... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Whirledge and Nott (Whirledge and Nott) on behalf of The owners C/O Rosenholme, Princess Margaret Road (The owners C/O Rosenholme, Princess Margaret Road)

    Mark Osborne, Shaun Osborne and Ms J Bower as freehold owners have instructed me to submit the following objection to the Lower Thames Crossing (“LTC”) application as their land is included in this.... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council)

    Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (TMBC) continues to support the Lower Thames Crossing Project, as we recognise that the existing Dartford Crossing is operating over capacity and there are limited... Read more

    Submitted by: Local authorities
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Stantec (Stantec) on behalf of Uniper (Uniper)

    The representation has been prepared by Stantec who are working on behalf of Uniper in relation to the MedwayOne development at the former Kingsnorth Power Station on the Hoo Peninsular in Medway. The... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • DLP Planning Ltd (DLP Planning Ltd) on behalf of Warley Green Limited (Warley Green Limited)

    I am writing on behalf of our client, Warley Green Limited, in response to the notice of acceptance by the Secretary of State for the A122 Lower Thames Crossing Development Consent Order (DCO). The... Read more

    Submitted by: Members of the public/businesses
    Date submitted: 23 February 2023

  • Alan Wade

    I believe that the location of the proposed site is completely wrong, that it is not value for money, and that it's imposition will be detrimental to the residents of both Dartford and Thurrock , by... Read more

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

  • Alasdair John Foden

    1) I believe in the light of the changes in inflation and uncertainties in Britain and The World during the last two years the total project cost will be significantly more than the £6.9 billion we... Read more

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

  • Alison Campbell

    Impacts to listed buildings adjacent to High Road Orsett by the frequency and load of vehicles on High Road during the construction, mitigation and legacy phase of works. In particular the a circa... Read more

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

  • Andrea Goring

    Public transport needs to be considered above and beyond more roads more cars means more carbon estimated at 6.6 million tonnes.

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

  • Andrew Smith

    This scheme is completely incompatible with the UK's obligations under the 2015 UN Climate Agreement made in Paris, and should be rejected out of hand.

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

  • Anglian Water Services Ltd (Anglian Water Services Ltd)

    Anglian Water is the statutory wastewater recycling provider (sewerage undertaker) for the project area north of the River Thames. Anglian Water and National Highways have been in discussion on the... Read more

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

  • Anne Bulman

    I want to object to the £10bn Lower Thames Crossing. I do not agree with spending public money on a single new road when fossil fuel use & resulting carbon emissions need to be stopped. This road will... Read more

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

  • Annie Webster

    Hello, as the window for guaranteed climate breakdown is fast closing, I feel that I must object strongly to this application to the Lower Thames Crossing. There is, imho, nothing post about this... Read more

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

  • Anthony Mack

    I campaigned successfully for National Cycle Route 177 and created the "Cyclopark" activity centre in Gravesham which in its missive statement encourages access to its facilities by sustainable... Read more

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

  • Anthony Rae

    I am a volunteer climate and transport campaigner, and I have reviewed the issues relating to this project on the Thames Crossing Action Group's, and the Transport Action Network's, websites. The ones... Read more

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

  • Arundel SCATE South Coast Alliance for Transport & Environment (Arundel SCATE South Coast Alliance for Transport & Environment)

    Arundel Scate is a community group of around 200 residents concerned with the quality of transport infrastructure, impacts of transport on the environment, seeking progressive, evidence-based... Read more

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

  • City of London Corporation (Comptroller & City Solicitors) (City of London Corporation (Comptroller & City Solicitors)) on behalf of Barking Power Limited (Barking Power Limited)

    BPL has no objection to the principle of the Project. The majority of matters are agreed as set out in the Statement of Common Ground. Its concern the subject of this Representation relates to the... Read more

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

  • Bev Lang

    I don’t think it would solve the problems suffered due to the Dartford Crossing, the impact to the local environment and communities is too significant and I feel it will make things worse. Traffic,... Read more

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

  • Brian Martin

    The project would damage valuable green belt land in a rural area, and create traffic and noise pollution. The lorry movements during construction project would also be disruptive to local residents.... Read more

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

  • Buglife- The Invertebrate Conservation Trust (Buglife- The Invertebrate Conservation Trust)

    Buglife has engaged with Highways England prior to the submission of the Lower Thames Crossing application over a number of years, with a focus on ensuring that the proposed mitigation and... Read more

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

  • C Fox

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

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

  • Caroline Beattie-Merriman

    I am emailing to register my strong objection to the scheme. More roads = more traffic. We need fewer vehicles on the road even if they are electrical, since the latter contain embedded carbon even if... Read more

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

  • Carolyn Richards

    I am making this application to register interest as a means to support all those that are asking a change in the transport network of this country. To ask that roads and cars are not at the centre of... Read more

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

  • Caspar Hughes

    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

  • Catherine Hoggarth

    I disagree very strongly with the Lower Thames Crossing for the following reasons: The large and adverse impact on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the ancient woodlands is... Read more

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

  • Holland Land & Property Limited (Holland Land & Property Limited) on behalf of Cheale Group Limited (Cheale Group Limited)

    Our client objects to any permanent rights over the access route identified as plot 44-112 and area identified as plot 44-90 on the Land Plans Regulation 5(2) (i) Sheet 44 that would impede the use of... Read more

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

  • Chris Todd

    I wish to strongly object to the Lower Thames Crossing which fails to deliver on its objectives, leaving Dartford still over capacity while causing huge damage to people and the environment. It will... Read more

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

  • Chris White

    I am disgusted by this proposition for many reasons: * In hard times such as these, the Government should be prioritising our money on the less well of * The Government should be concentrating on... Read more

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

  • Christine Board

    The proposed crossing will make no difference to the traffic, coming from Dartford. The pollution caused will make Thurrock a no go area and quite frankly we cannot afford this to happen.

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