Agenda item

A statement from the Lead Petitioner – Bob Lane

This item was brought forward for discussion by the Chairman as agreed at the start of the meeting.

1.            The Chairman welcomed Mr Bob Lane, representative of “No to Lower Thames Crossing East of Gravesend” and Mr Brian Sweetland, County Councillor for Gravesend Rural, who had been given permission to speak at the meeting by the Chairman.

2.            Mr Lane representative of “No to Lower Thames Crossing East of Gravesend” campaign spoke on the petition that asked the Council to withdraw its support for a Lower Thames Crossing East of Gravesend and to support the thousands of Kent residents whose lives would be devastated by this proposal.  A new crossing East of Gravesend would not address the problems at Dartford.

3.            The Chairman then invited the Cabinet Committee to debate the petition. During debate the following views were expresses and concerns were raised:

·      The lifting of the toll at Dartford had not reduced delays and congestion as anticipated. 

·      A new route was necessary and a status quo was not an option.

·      There would always be a collateral cost.

·      No viable alternative been put forward the crossing needed to be in Gravesend.

·      There would always be people who object to what every option was put forward.  This was a better option than adding to Dartford’s traffic. 

·      It was suggested that there was a need to look at getting freight off the roads and onto trains.

·      Residents travelling from one borough to another through the tunnel should be provided with a free bus service.    These options could be carried out through 106 agreements with five year costings.

·      A suggestion was made that the tunnel should be extended to avoid housing.

·      There was support verbalised for the petition and did not feel that the case had been made for Option C. 

·      It was suggested that Option A and the upgrading of the Dartford Tunnel should be addressed in KCC’s response to the Consultation.

·      There were strategic questions that need to be asked regarding how much infrastructure Kent was willing to accept and what was it doing to the quality of lives of Kent’s residents.  It was considered that this was a short term solution and that alternatives should be looked into.  Option C would have an effect on biodiversity, air quality, land and town scape, noise pollution.  It was questioned whether the Kent Environment Strategy had any value.

·      A request was made that a Kent Freight//Rail Action Plan to be produced.

·      A suggestion was made that a Select Committee or Members Task and Finish Group consider alternative ports other than Dover.

·      There was a need to look at what goods were moving on Kent’s roads at source.

·      This was not nimbyism; there was genuine concern by residents of Gravesend.  Option C would do nothing for the Dartford at best it would remove 14% of traffic from the Dartford Crossing. 

·      It was suggested that the M25 needed to be turned into a true London Orbital Road, that could be achieved with little land grab.  The entrance and exit would be on the south side between the M20 and the A2, coming out at North South Ockenden, bypassing the existing Tunnel.

·      Highways England needed to look at the suitability of the roads the traffic would be linked to coming out of the tunnel.

·      It was suggested that people needed to live in the real world and that  looking at more suggested routes that had not been through viability tests or costed would cause further delays that Kent could not afford. Mr Sweetland was given permission to give a point of information.  He advised that the option of a long tunnel under Dartford had been costed and that information could be found within the HE consultation papers at Option A14.

4.            Mr Balfour said that he had enormous sympathy for those that had signed the petition and empathy for all those that were going to be affected by the proposals if they went ahead.  Mr Balfour highlighted that; (i) Kent County Council was not the deciding body but a consultee; (ii) there needed to be an assurance within KCC‘s response to the consultation that it did not reinvent other things that had been discounted already; (iii) it was correct that KCC listened to the Petitioners because they would be hugely affected, if the proposal went ahead, therefore every possible mitigation should be included in the response, particularly compensation for those going to be affected; and (iv) whilst KCC needed to pay attention to the petition and understand where it was coming from and what it was about, there should also be an appreciation that this was a national product.  He reserved further comments for Item C2 “Proposed Response to the Highways England Consultation on proposed route options for a new Lower Thames Crossing” to be considered later on the agenda.

5.            Mr Balfour advised that he had attended; a meeting that had been recorded by the BBC to be publicised later in the evening; and a public meeting was held at Gravesend, both of which produced heightened feelings. He considered that HE’s comments had not helped residents in the local areas come to terms with what might happen, he urged Members to listen to the debates.

6.            Mr Balfour concluded that if the proposals were agreed further debates would take place on the designs for the Crossing.

7.            Mr Balfour thanked the Petitioners and Mr Lane.

8.            RESOLVED that the petition and the comments by Members on the petition be received.