Filter
Lower Thames Crossing

Relevant representations (registration comments)

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

Showing 1076 to 1100 of 1148 representations, newest first.

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

  • 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