Inadequacies of LTC consultation process

Please note that the info below was up to date at the point when HE first attempted to submit their LTC DCO in 2020.  Since then HE have held another consultation, and further inadequacies of LTC consultation will follow in light of all the new inadequacies of the Community Impacts Consultation.  

Read our document that highlights the inadequacies of LTC consultation process. From the very beginning to the end it has been diabolical.

Inadequacies of LTC consultation process

 

You can scroll through using the arrows

If you are having any issues with viewing our response above it can also be downloaded as a pdf file here.

 

This document was shared with all impacted local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate in late October 2020.  We hope our evidence will be helpful in the Adequacy of Consultation responses that the local authorities submit to the Planning Inspectorate, when consideration is given as to whether or not to accept the DCO application.

We certainly do not believe that fair and adequate consultation has taken place right through the process.

Highways England spoke out about our Inadequacies of LTC Consultation in response to an article that New Civil Engineer wrote about our report in Nov 2020 – www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/lower-thames-crossing-consultation-labelled-misleading-confusing-and-not-fair-24-11-2020/.

Highways England challenges every point highlighted by TCAG in the article, and we look forward to having the opportunity for the Planning Inspectorate to fully examine our proposals.

Yet they are never keen to sit down and properly discuss things with us, most likely because we have the evidence to back up our claims!

For example, HE claimed:

There was no bias for option C. Analysis showed route A was not as viable. For the report to suggest that consultation is about counting ‘votes’ is misleading – consultation is about getting feedback, not about generating votes, and the campaign petition from the 13,240 people they claimed were ‘discounted’ was not.

Maybe they’d like to review the 2016 consultation document and highlight references to Location A.  The Government clearly asked them to consult upon Locations A and C, yet the consultation was clearly biased towards Location C, it was only just over half way through the consultation that we managed to get a Government Minister to actually confirm that Location A was still an option and in the consultation!

And as for lumping over 13k responses together, that makes a huge difference when the reports to show the public support and opposition for the options is based on percentages of responses and 13k have been lumped together and counted as one organised campaign response.

Our reports are based of facts, we can reference sources to back up our claims, and are always happy to discuss with HE or anyone else who’s interested.

Plus as we all know it’s not just our group who have experience inadequacies and Highways England’s cover up culture…. read more

 

Related

View and download copies of the impacted local authorities Adequacy of Consultation representations to the Planning Inspectorate – www.thamescrossingactiongroup.com/reasons-for-the-ltc-dco-withdrawal/