Design Consultation – Step by step updates

We will list any further info or updates that we received and publish after the Step by Step to consultation has been published. This will allow you to easily locate any new updates that you may wish to read and consider either adding to your consultation response, or making additional responses about.  Please check back regularly between now and 12th August for the latest additions!

Please remember, do not copy and paste anything from the website or social media directly into your consultation response.  Your response should always be written in your own words about your own opinions about the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. Re-read the main Step by Step page if you need any further info about this!

Updates Index
  • Cost of the proposed LTC – www.thamescrossingactiongroup.com/cost-of-the-proposed-ltc/
    Why hasn’t the fact the cost of the LTC has risen significantly to £6.4bn- £8.2bn been included in the consultation materials?
    Do you consider nearly £573.5m per mile to be good value for money?
    Were the Tilbury Link Rd and Rest/Service areas removed from the LTC project in an attempt to try and make the benefit cost ratio look better than it actually is?
    What is the actual true cost of LTC when you consider all the extra costs on top of the predicted cost?
    Is this really a good way to be spending such a huge amount of tax payers money?
    What will be the real cost to the environment?
    How much will it end up costing the NHS in air pollution related illnesses as a result of LTC?
  • Design Consultation materials inadequacies – www.thamescrossingactiongroup.com/design-consultation-materials-inadequacies/
    Do you feel the consultation has been adequate?
    Are you aware of any inadequacies/errors in the consultation materials?
    Do you think places should be spelt and labelled correctly on maps?
    Is it good enough that they are quietly mentioning they made an error in Map Book 3 now? How many people that used it as a reference point previously might miss knowing that they made a mistake in the Supplementary Consultation edition of Map Book 3?
    Do you think that a whole sheet should have been missing in Map Book 2 in the last consultation?
    Did you miss the fact that the development boundary now goes right up to junction 28 on the M25 because it was missing in the last consultation?
    Do you think they should be using up to date maps, rather than ones with places that were demolished years ago?
    Do you find if confusing and concerning that Map Book 3 doesn’t appear to be showing a removed false cutting in the Brentwood Rd/Hoford Rd area?
    Have you had any issues accessing the Interactive Maps on the consultation website?
    Did you think there were 19 rather than 17 noise barriers?  Did you realise the noise barrier on the different pages were actually the same barriers?
    Could you work out what a gas pipeline compound or an electricity switching station are from what you were told in the consultation materials?
    Had you realised that Cranham Solar Farm was going to be demolished?  Do you think this fact should have been detailed more clearly and not just hidden away in the Map Book?  Why was the solar farm shaded on the consultation guide maps as ‘proposed’ when it has been operational since Dec 2016?
    What else do you consider to be an inadequacy of the consultation materials?
  • Inadequacies of the actual consultation – www.thamescrossingactiongroup.com/inadequacies-of-the-actual-consultation/
    Do you think the actual consultation was adequate?
    Do you think the consultation should be held during the COVID-19 crisis?
    Have you found it harder than usual not having consultation events to attend?
    How did you find the webinars? Were they helpful? Did you manage to get answers to your questions?
    Are you aware of any issues regarding the telephone call back appointments?
    How did you find the telephone callback service if you used it?
    Do you think it right that the majority of the consultation was held online?
    Do you have concerns that others who are not online did not get a fair chance to take part in the consultation?
    Do you think the physical consultation packs should have included the Environmental Impacts Update, or at least been given the chance to include one in the pack?
    Do you think you should have been given the opportunity to have more than one response form included in the pack?
    Did you find the maps that were sent in the consultation pack adequate?
    What other concerns over the inadequacies of the consultation do you have?

 

Step by step

Click through in order, or to whichever part you wish to view.

Questions 1a and 1b – South of the river in Kent (M2/A2 area proposals)

Questions 1c and 1d – North of the river in Thurrock and Essex (Tilbury area proposals)

Questions 1e and 1f – North of the river in Thurrock and Essex (A13/A1089 area proposals)

Questions 1g and 1h – North of the river in Thurrock and Essex (Lower Thames Crossing/M25 area proposals)

Questions 1i and 1j – North of the river in Thurrock and Essex (M25 junction 29 area proposals)

Questions 2a and 2b – Revised development boundary

Questions 2c and 2d – Special category land and sports clubs

Questions 3a and 3b – Environmental impacts and how we plan to reduce them

Question 4 – Other Comments

Questions 5a, 5b,5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f – The consultation

The other sections – Indentification questions and Equality and Diversity are not compulsory, fill in what you wish if you wish!

 

Remember to ensure you use one of the official channels to submit your Lower Thames Crossing Design Refinement Consultation response by 23:59 on Wednesday 12th August 2020.