AA Peluso
"This entire project must be stopped as per my original submission. The destruction of land, increased noise, pollution and traffic damage must stop."

Adam
"This project should be cancelled. Ever more roads are yesterday's solution and the projects's own figures demonstrate how insignificant the contribution of this road is predicted to be against projected demand. Solutions which seek to change these predictions of ever-increasing car use are the only reasonable way forward. This money would go much further towards achieving the stated aims of this project if spent on public transport improvements."

Alan Howard
"I am not convinced of the viability of building a new lower Thames Crossing."

Alan Paul Camfield
"I object to this on the basis of building more roads just leads to more traffic , more pollution , more bad news for CO2 accumulation and the bad effects on climate change and the bad effects on nature and biodiversity ."

Alistair Baxter
"I wish to make comments on the relevance of this project to both national and regional transport infrastructure. Also the development and future potential for both cross-Thames and south-Thames economic, social and housing growth arising out of this project which I see as a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I have specific views on the appropriate balance of risk assessment between the needs of the natural environment and those of the the broader local population and its aspirations for the future"

Andrew Allman
"Speeding up traveling to Kent"

Andrew Gill-Cogan
"I am still waiting for an explanation as to why the project that would see the new Thames Crossing directly joining the southern end of the A130 is no longer an option. The driving force behind the 'new' A130 was primarily to connect to a new River Thames crossing. Thus taking traffic and all associated issues away from Dartford, the M25 and Thurrock. Please explain."

Andrew Goatly
"Given the climate crisis and the threats to a sustainable environment from resource depletion and covering land with tarmac we should do everything we can to reduce the use of cars. Internal combustion engine use must end in the next 10 years to comply with government's own climate targets. Electric vehicles depend on lithium, the mining of which despoils the environment. The carbon footprint of constructing any car is also massive. The only environmental justification for this project would be if the road was primarily used for public transport which has a much lower carbon footprint than cars. This would mean bus lanes for the crossing. Freight should be moved over to railways. The government has declared a climate crisis and legislated to reach net zero This crossing is incompatible with these legal requirements as it will do nothing to move our transport systems away from cars and trucks The money spent on this project would be far better spent on moving freight onto railways and improving public transport and cycling. If the planned crossing construction goes ahead it should have a limited number of lanes for traffic and the majority should be designated for buses not private card or freight."

Angela Jones
"In agreement with the plans"

Anna-Marie Nash
"I am in full support of planning to go ahead. I think it will be good for our transport system. reducing pollution, being better for the environment and also a fantastic opportunity to join Essex with Kent."

Anthony Barry Barton
"The process to produce the crossing is long and detailed. The inclusion has been impressive but it is now time to press onto completion of this much needed project."

Barry David George Osborne
"i need to know that the new crossing is a/ environmentally observing local nature activities b/ efficient and not extending budgets c/ coming in on the correct build times and not delayed d/ worthwhile project for the better ,by people affected by the current dartford tunnel crossing"

Barry Hawkins
"I pay my Council Tax and am a member of the Labour Party. This crossing is close to my house in Kent and affects my property"

Bhoseok Nam
"There is an overwhelming need for this Project on balance and I support the proposals."

Bill Hollis
"The lower Thames Crossing is a much needed infrastructure project. The delays at the dartford crossing are intolerable. Standing traffic creates huge volumes of pollution. Older vehicles do not have start stop systems. The delay in traffic is probably not costed at the true rate. For example a sales representative on the road had to cost £50.00 an hour sitting in a jam for 2 hours. A lorry very much more . No consideration is given to a lorry, who must arrive at a warehouse at a specific moment, having to build in wriggle room in case there are dartford delays. The warehouses send lorries that are late away. The wriggle room allowance must costs money. The cost benefit is probably not full . The new crossing will bring new enterprises & opportunities to the south of Essex. The new crossing has to my knowledge been a sometime soon project since I moved to Essex 30 + years ago. Let’s all hope it can now go ahead swiftly. Thankyou"

Bill Wiseman
"I support this development. South Essex and North Kent is in danger of becoming choked by traffic heading from North of London for the continent. The M25 / Dartford Crossing is no longer able to cope with the volumes of traffic now using the route. At times it is near impossible to travel from Essex to Kent and the reverse."

Brian Dobson
"My life will be negatively impacted by the furtherance of this project and I believe that the project is unnecessary in its present form and that, should the project go forward, there will be significant environmental damage and nuisance caused to me and my community in Linford."

Bruce Michael Drew
"Faster and less stressful access to Dover ferries and channel tunnel from our Essex home. The Dartford Bridge and Tunnels are a major bottleneck in our journeys at present. The Lower Thames Crossing will unload the Dartford Bridge and Tunnels thereby allowing faster passage for traffic from and to southern portion of M25."

Claire Richardson
"I would like to make a representation opposing the LTC on the following points, where I feel this project in this location will not stand up to scrutiny • The inadequacy of the LTC to provide significant relief to Dartford crossing congestion. • The notion that the same issues at Dartford will be spread further east in Gravesham; impacts on local people, schools and traffic with worsening air quality. • The inadequacy of network resilience in worst-case conditions; the frequency of accidents at Dartford, predicted accidents on the LTC, how traffic will migrate between crossings when there are complete closures; how traffic will impact A2/M2/Blue Bell Hill during construction and when LTC is operational (especially without any upgrade to Blue Bell Hill). • The sheer scale of the LTC junction on the A2, with reduction of the M2 to 2 lanes in either direction; the built-in bottle-neck at this location. • The ever-rising costs of the project. • Large adverse impacts to landscape, open views, biodiversity and wildlife. • The safety of using the LTC with lack of hard-shoulders and reliance on smart technology. • The lack of obvious benefits to local communities that will be directly impacted by the LTC. • The overall impacts of construction and future operation. • The irreversible nature of the project if built. I would also like to consider in my representation: • The purposes of Green Belt. • The unpublicised merits of other options that have been discounted by National Highways before statutory consultation. If possible, (and as well as referring to DCO documents) I would like to refer to an April 2013 report entitled ‘Review of Lower Thames Crossing Options: Final Review Report (conducted by AECOM for the Department for Transport), which I feel is a relevant and objective document. • Where possible, I would also like to use my own images of the local area to illustrate points."

Colin Ivin
"I live on [Redacted], and i am concerned that this road will become a rat run for people to get to the LTC."

Councillor Sue Sammons
"This plan affects the area where I represent and live and ihave concerns about the build"

Cyril Gregory
"The principle submissions I intend to make are on the environmental impact of the project. This would be on the fauna and flora within the immediate region as well as further afield. I would like to know, a) What efforts would be made to reduce if not completely avoid any adverse consequences? b) What continued measures would be taken to monitor the impact before and after the project is complete?"

Dan Williams
"I commute to work in Harlow Essex via the M25 and Dartford Crossing so I am fully behind the new Lower Thames Crossing in principle as long as it doesn't overtly and unnecessarily harm the local environment."

Daphne Revell
"This crossing should be at the A.130 via a Tunnel under the Thames to the M.2 in Kent.This was an option at the start of the Lower Thames Crossing choices, and then removed. It would be the least intr5usive, would not use vast areas of Grade 1 Agricultural Land (like it will in Thurrock) and far more cost effective too. Thurrock has the Dartford Tunnel which creates the highest air pollution in the U.K - causes chest infections, asthma, respiritory infections, heart and lung diseases, great distress to our young children as well because ofthese illnesses, and viral infections, [Redacted] We do not need and cannot endure this desecration being imposed on us after we sent in 700 replies to Highways England unanimously against the Lower Thames Crossing anywhere in our Borough -and our Council also joined us in this respect too. Destroy this scheme. Big waste of money ."

Darren Bartholomew
"As our property directly borders the development and there will be a new combined footpath / bridleway / cycle path running along the back of our garden once the scheme is built I wish to be able to provide input on the potential impact that may have on security and privacy"

David James
"This needs to be built asap to help reduce pollution in Dartford caused by the Dartford tunnels."

David Plumb
"This route would not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing. The projected carbon emissions are totally unacceptable. The absolute destruction of wildlife habitat is also unacceptable. The absence of a hard shoulder on this motorway is dangerous and irresponsible."

David Thomas
"I will be affected by increased traffic volume in my local Kent area and would like to see proposals for the mitigation of this problem"

David Woods
"This project is long overdue and should be supported in principle, subject only to detailed planning and environmental considerations. Important that the expected traffic flows are understood and realistic. Very important to be realistic about the effects of the construction process on pollution, disruption to business and effects on local people."

Dean Lincoln
"I am against the building of this new road and crossing, as it's construction with bring noise, congestion and pollution to the area.during the build The construction also ends forever some beautiful green areas. In our already over built and over populated area. This loss of land alone will destroy wildlife habitat and the very things that create the air that we breathe. The finished result will be increased traffic to the local area, there will be an increase in noise and pollution Your own figures also show that once built it will be below capacity, that is projected Alll in all ,the result be the destruction of an area of beauty It is shown that every new road built ,quickly becomes congested and polluted, we need a different thought approach to the problem"

Diana Zachau
"I am strongly opposing the planning and building of the Lower Thames crossing for the following reasons: Environmental impact: The construction of the tunnel and approach roads would have an impact on the local environment, including air and noise pollution, habitat destruction, and the potential for water pollution. The project would also involve the loss of recreational ground, farm land, and ancient woodlands which is crucial for air quality in this region. Additionally, the increased local traffic and pollution resulting from the crossing could have negative health implications, including increased risk of lung diseases and other respiratory problems due to low air quality. Cost: The project is expected to cost billions of pounds, which some people argue could be better spent on other priorities, such as public transportation or infrastructure projects in other parts of the country as well as much needed improvement for existing roads which are badly maintained and neglected. Tolls are expected which are a a double toll crossing in this region, completely ignoring that the existing crossing already charges despite any promises some 20 years ago. Effectiveness: Some critics argue that the Lower Thames Crossing would do little to alleviate congestion on the existing Dartford Crossing, and that more comprehensive solutions, such as upgrading public transportation including movement of good onto the rail system and away from roads or implementing would be more effective. Alternatives: There have been suggestions that alternative solutions, such as a new bridge or ferry service, should be considered instead of a tunnel. Public opposition: There has been significant opposition to the project from local residents, environmental groups, and other stakeholders, who argue that the negative impacts of the crossing would outweigh any potential benefits. Governmental goals: The government has stated its intention to reduce traffic on roads in order to meet emissions targets and improve air quality and strive towards zero carbon, the Lower Thames crossing. Building a new road tunnel could potentially contradict these goals."

Dobinson Michael
"Pollution Close proximity to Linford is unnecessary with there is room to move at least another 500 metres to the west of the village The mess on our small roads for at least 7 years of construction Extra traffic from construction"

Dr E Thompson
"Environmental impact"

Duncan Foster
"Reduce time taken to travel to Essex"

Ed Kimatta
"I support the proposed crossing. It would benefit a huge amount of drivers and overall it would reduce congestion, journey times and emissions for the growing number of drivers making the crossing from Kent to Essex and vice versa. It should have been built years ago."

Ellie Beadle
"* Environmental impacts and global climate emergency. * Pollution and health impacts * Irreversible change to a semi rural landscape * Economic overdevelopment of South East England * Environmentally less damaging (and cheaper) options at Dartford."

Erwin Go
"On a regular basis I am crossing the Thames. Blackwall, Rotherhithe and Dartford are all being used. A new crossing could be very important to me as I make use of the Channel crossing on a very regular basis."

G W Clemence
"Living in Kent and having to travel around the M25 regularly, I am constantly delayed by the traffic congestion around the Dartford crossing. This issue should have been addressed years ago but has been ignored. The issues that occur because of the congestion, particularly for those living close to the crossing, must be addressed now and a second crossing built at the earliest opportunity. I am extremely concerned about the worsening traffic conditions on the M25 around the Dartford Crossing. I am a regular user and often held up by awful congestion. Also, the air quality around Dartford is getting worse and needs immediate attention."

Gareth Byrne
"As a local resident and business person I my representation will be to assess the impact of the proposed changes on local residents and businesses. Also, as a parent of young children, my representation will also consider the impact of the proposed changes on both their health and their education, and also their well-being."

Gaz Driver
"I am very interested in taking part to give an honest opinion and view. We need another crossing as the Dartford crossing is not far from capacity on a daily bases and needs to be reduced. I personally believe we need another crossing and this must be done in a fair way"

Geoff Edwards
"I am an interested party as a local person that uses the roads in this area and how this new road will help with constant traffic jams"

Geoffrey Carlton-Smith
"I drive from either Portsmouth ferry port or Dover ferry port out of and into the UK and need to use the A12 to get to my home. There are regularly queues going south to north at the current crossing and the additional crossing should negate those long waits. I would like this new crossing scheme to be eco friendly and as carbon neutral as possible."

Gladys Vellamaa
"- The proposed Lower Thames Crossing is not fit for purpose and evidence has been provided that it won't solve the issues at the Dartford Crossing that it has been designed to solve - The proposed LTC is harmful to the environment and residents affected - The project contains misleading information, e.g the total cost of the project and misleading aerial videos to name a few - The consultations have not provided sufficient information, e.g. a 3D model of the project - The impact analyses have been inadequate or missing altogether"

Graeme Peterson
"Tunnel Construction and the method and route to the muck disposal site"

Hazel Cox
"I live within the affected area I do not think it will eliminate the problems at Dartford caused by the the incomplete M25 ring I am gravely concerned that at a huge public cost it will create a new very accident prone area between Bluebell Hill and Dartford, with high pollution, loss of agricultural land, and a non functioning public transport system from here to anywhere. That there will also be as a result, a huge additional cost to local boroughs and Kent Highways while they sort out how to keep local traffic moving.... costs that should be included in the LTC proposal in my opinion. Plus, if I wanted to drive to Thurrock from here it would still be more economical in all ways to use the Dartford Tunnel I live within the affected area, quality of my life has been and will continue to be restricted if this goes ahead. I have studied carefully every consultation doc. Received or acquired and have responded to every one since the very first inception of a Lower Thames Crossing requirement, which was then based on requirements of what was then referred to as Dubai Port. Nothing has convinced me yet, the proposed cost I do not believe for one minute will be enough to cover, and local boroughs will end up needing to spend mega bucks altering and maintaining local road structures. Levelling up in my opinion is not meant to be used towards such post remedial costs, they should be included in the proposal to govt for the LTC project. So I have a huge interest in maintaining the best possible future for the ‘beautiful’ environment close to me."

Ian Carter
"It is my belief that the current proposed route is not & will not be fit for purpose & I propose that Option A & D are re-evaluated."

Inoventech Ltd
"My Specialist area is Safety engineering in relation to hydrogen as a transport fuel. This is due to a) become a big issue for goods vehicles using the Dartford crossings and b) become an essential way of decarbonising the construction process as JCB has started to convert its fleet of construction vehicles to hydrogen. The work my company does is facilitating the use of hydrogen in these areas by improving the safety aspects. I am strongly involved in reducing explosion risk of this light gas and I am acutely aware that it will not be possible for the existing two Dartford tunnels to take hydrogen vehicles due to inherent construction but that the LTC does not suffer these problems due to its design. It will be essential to divert hydrogen powered vehicles to the new tunnel and ban them in the existing tunnels until the approach roads at Dartford are completely remodeled, to keep hydrogen vehicles exclusively on the QE2 bridge, My company is working with others to facilitate JCB's green conversion which will be essential to the provision of hydrogen bowsers for fueling construction plant for the 23km of approach roads - reduce the carbon footprint of the project"

Ivan Murray-Smith
"The main point I wish to make as a road user is that the Lower Thames Crossing cannot be built soon enough. The Dartford Crossing is grossly inadequate and does not have capacity to serve traffic needs of the late 20th, let alone the early 21st Century. I am often stuck in queuing traffic even at gone midnight, and the large numbers of queuing / idling vehicles in the queues no doubt have a significant adverse environmental impact."

Jackie Doyle-Price MP
"Whilst I support the need for additional crossings across the Thames this proposal is deficient. This has been approached as a strategic road with insufficient attention paid to the impact on local roads. It will add considerable congestion to the road network in Thurrock. My constituents are hugely disadvantaged by the presence of the Dartford crossing. When there are traffic incidents it can lead to gridlock lasting many hours. It was against this background that I was very clear that any new crossing must alleviate congestion at Dartford and must not create any additional congestion on Thurrock’s local road network. I am sad to say that this is not the case. Indeed as currently designed there is every prospect that the traffic congestion will become worse. This route is a missed opportunity to design a road which would have helped to deliver wider economic objectives. For example the A127 is in need of widening and without it Essex is constrained in how it delivers its housing numbers. For that reason I supported a route which would have connected there and connected with the M25 at junction 29. Instead what we have is one that loops through Thurrock and joins the M25 between Junction 29 and junction 30. It is an M25 bypass for Dover Port traffic. Whilst tackling traffic congestion caused by Dover made sense at the time the crossing was conceived, we have since then had Brexit. This as had the effect of changing the economics of port activity. Today, the fastest growing ports are here in Thurrock. Yet the port traffic from Thurrock’s busy ports cannot access this new piece of road infrastructure Such an approach is fundamentally flawed. Thurrock is the logistics capital of the UK. With the three busy Ports, the fastest growing port centre in the UK and the highest intensity of logistics employment we depend massively on appropriate road and rail infrastructure. It is therefore utterly wrong that we should be expected to host a brand new motorway with all the attendant environmental costs that go with it without being able to draw benefit from it ourselves. Furthermore Thurrock Borough Council has ambitions to deliver significant numbers of new homes. Yet we are blighted from doing so by the land envelope currently set aside by Lower Thames crossing and National Highways objects to any housing development which exceeds 200 homes on the basis that it would add to traffic congestion at junction 30 of the M25. We are absolutely stuck until issues surrounding the Lower Thames crossing are resolved but this has snow been going on for fifteen years. In the fifteen years since this route was first proposed the world has changed significantly and it is now past its sell by date. National Highways needs to go back to the drawing board. A quick win to add capacity at the Dartford crossing could be achieved by the construction of East-facing slips at Lakeside. This would take considerable traffic away from Junction 30."

James Thompson
"A new Thames crossing is imperative both for communities and commuters. The present infrastructure is not capable of dealing with current traffic levels now and in the future. A new crossing will help in lessening the impact of congestion and pollution in the Dartford area and so assist in the distribution of commerce and trade."

Jamie Russell
"I am concerned that the proposed scheme will increase carbon emissions by around 6.6m tonnes. This is at odds with the warnings from scientists and the UN IPCC about the need for nations to cut emissions rapidly and by 45% from present levels in what will need to be a complete overhaul of society within the next seven years. The need to cut carbon emissions aggressively requires the UK to reconsider its transport projects and aims. Failure to reduce emissions sufficiently in the next few years is predicted to have catastrophic consequences both in the UK and abroad. I am also concerned with the proposed scheme's impact on thousands of acres of farmland, ancient woodland and ancient/veteran trees, and wildlife including protected species. The road is a disaster for the natural world, our climate, air pollution and my children's hopes of inheriting a liveable planet. I have seen no explanation of how this proposed scheme can be justified given the crisis we are currently in. I am concerned that the scheme will not solve the traffic problems it is supposed to. it will induce demand in cross river trffic and it will increase carbon emissions by over 6m tonnes. Is is hugely expensive (£10b) and not fit for purpose. Building it will destroy vital woodland, farmland and wildlife habitats during a climate & ecological emergency and at a time when the UN IPCC warns we risk the rapidly closing window to maintain a liveable planet."

Janet Winch
"As I live very close to the proposed road. I would like to be kept in the loop as to whats going on and to be able to make any points if they need to be raised"

John Booth
"I hope to address: 1/. Impact on wildlife - including loss of habitat and effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. 2/. Impact on climate change - including compatibility with national and international targets - construction phase and use phase. 3/. Impact on congestion - including traffic growth on specific routes. 4/. Alternatives - including greater economic localisation, increase in rail transport, carbon pricing, and road pricing. The future will not be like the past."

John David Fish
"A further crossing between Dartford and Southend is desperately needed to relieve cogestion at the Dartford crossings."

John England
"Why destroy large portions of South Essex and North Kent, when the relief is required 10 miles away. Its a simple fix that if it had been your preferred option would probably be well under construction by now. A deep pair of tunnels for M25 traffic Only entering from the south of the A2 junction and emerging north of the A13 junction. The existing crossings would then be for local traffic only. this would also alleviate local congestion at seasonal periods. just about every road layout you people design is useless before its put into service. two major shopping outlets with inadequate road systems and a major Hospital you should hang your heads in shame. A child playing with cars on a carpet could come up with a better thought out plan than all your educated heads have managed and caused major delays in getting it off the ground, and its still no nearer all the time the costs are escalating. Surveys done along the route how much has this cost, un certainty for residents along its entire route. you should have been characters in only fools and Horese"

John Gostling
"As your a civil servant could you explain why the road did not come up in a 25 year search , we have lived here for over 15 years and nothing come up in the search from the solicitors. This major road infraructure was in plan for many years just like the airport to be built in kent, back in the 70s . Also why do you need to take so much land of the farmers, the noise from the m25 is over 1mile away when the new road is built it will be 1/2 mile away ,weres the noise from the traffic going to go , will most of the aggregate taken out be reused on site to eliminate pollution from tipper Lorrys transporting it away. Why can't the area of land adjacent to ours be used as a compound for vehicles and then re claimed for a nature park as it is Dump left by the former GLC . We all now it is a done deal but why couldn't it of gone through canvey ,the road is now a tunnel ,Kent would be far reachable for many and canvey would get the infraructure they nead ,I've even asked a member of there council and they got declined , instantly ,option C has always been the main one ,many thanks john"

John Harold Anthony Taylor MIVR MILT
"Is in support of the crossing with regard to the local and national road infastructure. My representation would be to monitor the means to aid and increase the flow of HGV traffic into and across this borough, thereby aiding the employment opportunities and promoting wealth throughout the A12/A130/A13/A2m2 corridor. I would asssist ANY group in speeding up the planning procedure and completion of this project, so that the expansions at Tilbury2, DPWorld and local indstrial areas wouldbe attractive to users."

John Johnson
"My principal submission, while supporting much of the proposals, is that the planning process to date has not taken sufficient account of the impact on local roads south of the Thames. In particular, the proposed routing of access roads around Cobham and Gravesend East will encourage ‘rat-running’ through Sole Street to access or egress the tunnel. Comments that we have submitted to date to the proposers have been ignored."

John McCann
"I will comment on any changes to the areas around Chalk."

John White
"I want to understand fully the road layout in Hornsby Lane"

Jon Ruben
"I travel to Broadstairs from Nottingham twice a month and realise that we need this Lower Thames Crossing now, not in 100 years when I'm dead. Get your skates on and stop messing around with enquiries and new routes etc. Any other country in the world would get its infrastructure sorted without listening to the moans of saboteurs and luddites. There are Nimbys and there are greens who will never be happy with any route. As an ordinary member of the public I know we need this crossing to reduce congestion on the M25 and speed travel from the North and the East to Kent and Europe for commercial traffic. It doesn't take an enquiry to know this. Get it sorted now."

Julian Howes
"The main points that I intend to raise are on the following: The traffic impact of the proposal on local roads and junctions on the highway network. The lack of proper links such that traffic from all areas can access the Lower Thames Crossing particularly in respect those to the A13. The lack of necessity in traffic terms in that the majority of traffic that currently uses the Dartford Crossing is unlikely to use the Lower Thames Crossing. The environmental impact and the additional pollution created by the proposal in area that already suffers from significant pollution problems. The impact on local neighbourhoods and accessibility for other road users. The lack of links to strategic areas such as the Port of Tilbury. The poor design and thought on appropriate links. The overall need for the proposal in a time where we should be looking to decrease vehicle movements and provide better transport links. Basically I intend to submit a rebuttable to the necessity of the development in traffic and transportation terms and question if the Dartford Crossing is so congested why are National Highways still accepting developments in and around this Section of the M25 and not suggesting that the Lower Thames Crossing would be a mitigating factor in allowing these developments."

Julian Quinton
"I wish to make a representation regarding motorcycles using the tunnel and having the same access rights as they have at the present Dartford crossing. i.e. learners can use the tunnel as can motorcycles below 125cc or the equivalent electric motorcycles. Although I was assured that this was the case at the consultations, this is not stated in the plans."

Keith Banks
"1. That every effort will be made to recruit workers locally 2. That if there is a toll levied all residents within a 10 mile radius will be given a preferential pass. 3. Every care will be taken to ensure that the additional wear and tear to existing roads due to construction traffic will be both maintained and made good during and at the end of the project"

Ken Bowman
"The decision to proceed with the current Lower Thames crossing was made without adequate consideration of the alternative which was designated as scheme A14 in the original evaluations. Scheme A14 is a long tunnel from south of the A2 (highway) to north of the A13(highway). This long tunnel solution is probably superior environmentally, economically and socially to the proposed scheme. An analysis of the validity (or otherwise) of this statement is required before proceeding with the proposed scheme."

Kevin Johncock
"To ensure that the natural environment of Shorne Ifield Road (the road adjascent to Thong Lane), Randall and Shorne Woods and their environs, are protected from damage, destruction or degregation, with particular focus on hedgerows and trees where birds etc nest, feed and find shelter."

Kimberley Dennis
"I support the new crossing"

Laura Hicks
"As a resident of (REDACTED). We do not want this new road or the impact it will have on the area. It will cause high level or noise and even more pollution in a highly polluted area already. It will cause an impact at my address after it has been built and while being built. After attending a planning meeting at orsett hall the information was not clear and some questions could not be answered. However the impression we did get was that the lower Thames crossing was more interested on the impact to golfers at orsett golf course than to local residents. My address will be impacted by a large increase in noise and pollution I will also be impacted in the building process with road closures and areas of green along Brentwood road being used for plant/ equipment storing and footpaths being closed. This is project is unsafe."

Linda Allen
"My representation will be from the point of view of ecological damage and inappropriateness of the project given the government's climate commitments."

Linda Hall
"Living in southeast Kent and having to use the M25 and all the difficults it has with assidents & too much traffic it'll be great to go north without the M25 & it'll be easier to get to Norwich and surrounding areas."

Lisa Scott
"In order to meet legally binding climate change targets, private car use in the UK must be reduced by 25%, there is therefore no need for an additional crossing. The funding needs to be directed towards schemes that actively support the legally binding need to reduce car use."

Manjit Atwal
"The Area urgently needs this so get on with it."

Marc Harding
"I think that the new river crossing should go ahead. Just having the Blackwall and Dartford tunnels isn't enough - and the Rotherhithe tunnel is just a Victorian throwback."

Maria Guest-Naharnowicz
"As a holiday home owner in Allhallows , near Rochester - this will affect traffic flow from Essex to Kent and congestion will build up around get entrance in burg sides of the estuary. The damage to the local environment in Kent near Shorne and Cobham will negatively split these countryside villages and cause traffic mayhem! The residents of these areas as well as other local areas will be impacted as well. Please bear in mind that with more increased traffic as well as more housing being built - will exacerbate the whole situation."

Marie Frost
"I believe this plan is the way forward in developing not only this country's infrastructure but also to maintain better links to Europe"

Marion Money
"That the planned access from A2 onto the tunnel approach road is inadequate. At this point the number of lanes is reducing from existing. The design relies on the Smart motorway principle which is now outdated and dangerous. Traffic congestion is inevitable. There will be excessive pollution very close to housing and schools. Public footpaths are being removed. In particular a very popular and picturesque route from Riverview park to Shorne Country park . The green bridge designed to replace it will be noisy and there will be a risk from pollution to pedestrians. The area adjoining the A2 is already exceedeing Nitrate guidelines. The increased traffic will make it dangerous."

Maritime and Coastguard Agency
"The MCA has an interest in the works associated with the marine environment, and the potential impact on the safety of navigation, access to ports, harbours and marinas and any impact on our search and rescue obligations. We would like to be consulted on the establishment of any infrastructure or works in or over the marine environment. For works required in or over the marine environment, a Marine Licence may be required under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, at which time the MCA will be invited to comment on the licence application from the safety of navigation safety perspective. In addition, the MCA would point the developers in the direction of the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) and its Guide to Good Practice; they would need to liaise and consult with any relevant Statutory Harbour Authority to develop a robust Safety Management System (SMS) for the project under this code"

Mark Edge
"Just build it"

Mark Gunns
"The country needs this initiative to keep transport moving and relieve the nonsense surrounding the Dartford Crossing"

Mark R Bird
"I have serious concerns over the impact of this proposal to air quality, noise and light pollution, and the effect which the scheme will have upon the general health of Thurrock residents. Our area is already blighted by the M25 and A13, and this scheme will draw increased traffic levels to the area, compounding the issue."

Mark Scutt
"I have lived in Kent for 40+ years and have always worked in various locations in London and Essex. I have found that East London and Essex have long been disconnected from Kent and vice versa due to the road infrastructure. The Lower Thames Crossing will bring the borders closer together whereas for years the river has provided a hard boundary. The opportunities for the public will be excellent as people in Kent can work in Essex and vice versa whereas currently being on time for work is not possible. I believe companies will benefit with improved logistics and staffing opportunities. It will be a great opportunity for East London, Essex and Kent to grow and catch up with Central and West London. West and North London had always grown quicker because the river is narrower and there are many crossings. Lower Thames Crossing will bring our County to new strength and future proof us for generations to come."

Medway Labour and Cooperative Group
"The Medway Labour and Cooperative Group will be making making representations on: The impact the LTC will have on the highways infrastructure in Medway and the wider North Kent area The implications for traffic impacts in relation to the current and future development of Medway The environmental impacts of the LTC for Medway and the wider North Kent area"

Michael Cox
"Strongly in favour of professing as quickly as possible."

Michael Dovey
"I believe this will eventually cost 10 billion plus and do very little to improve traffic movement in Thurrock and Dartford. The money should surely be directed to more worthy needs. I know my views will be ignored, an absolute fortune has been spent on this already. Fait accompli from the start."

Michael Dwyer
"As a person deeply affected by the Dartford crossing, since i live next to it, I'd really like to understand and contribute to the review and design of the lower Thames crossing."

Michael Portwain
"My main points are the many points of pollution that the road will cause, and that the road will be the 3rd side of a triangle that will totally encircle Sth ockendon by major roads. The fact that there are better routes, causing less pollution , costing less, and asking how can the country afford the billions this road will cause at the present time. Many of extra trees being planted into a wood are in Brentwood which has enough country parks already and not next to the road in Thurrock where the actual road will run. My concerns about the loss of wildlife land and corridors, the lack of electrical charging points along the route =nil. The fact the road will not be classes as a motorway, and only two lanes in areas, and no hard shoulder (with all the dangers that presents) .the fact that most people ,in Thurrock and east London do not have access to this road."

Michael Smoker
"I wish to express my views to the flow and layout of junctions of the proposed new road."

Mr Jonathan Baker
"I fully support the Lower Thames Crossing designed as a Three lane all purpose dual Carriageway with its design features with green bridges and landscaping to screen the road from noise, visual, and general intrusion on the landscape especially the Kent Section. However as this road connects two motorways M2 and M25. This road should have been a dual 3 lane motorway as certain slower vehicles will not be allowed on A122. I would suggest the motorway should be designated the M2 to commence from the M25 which could be Junction 1. The rest of the M2 junctions be renumbered , particularly a proposed junction 5a will be inserted between the existing Junctions 5 and 6. The motorway should have hard shoulders for emergency use. The section of the existing A2 from Gravesend East to the Lower Thames Crossing also be part of the M2, as parallel roads will be constructed alongside the existing Trunk Road, which has hard shoulders. I just hope this will not end up in the High Court, as this is a waste of time and money holding up vital schemes."

Mr Simon Daniel
"The area where I live Linford/Stanford already has some of the most polluted air in Europe let alone the UK. You now plan to drive a new motorway through an area of green belt land. Are you trying to kill us all. This is not needed here. If the main crossing is closed our roads will also be gridlocked. That happens so frequently I fear for the health of my family. This is a disgraceful development which has totally ignored the views of local people and just listened to businesses."

Mrs Katherine Hicks
"My concerns are that the new road will be too close to my home. This causes me concerns about the disruption during the construction of the new road as well as after the road has been completed. The main worries are about noise pollution(which will have I believe will impinge enormously on the quality of our lives), poor air quality (which is already affected by the A13) and the upheaval of having such a large area of construction going on locally, which will impact on my families work travelling times and interfere with general family life. The impact of this will also have a detrimental affect on the health and well being of my grandchildren who live nearby."

Neil Camp
"I wish to support the application."

Nigel Fern
"Poor future proofing - a 3 lane motorway with no 'hard shoulder' is a recipe for disaster. It needs to be a minimum of 3 running lanes with a hard shoulder, preferably with 4 running lanes and a hard shoulder. You cannot widen a tunnel only dig another one! Get it right now and save money in the long term."

Ola George
"I believe the construction of lower Thames crossing would make life easier for people living in Kent, Essex and environ. It would be a good addition to our infrastructure. Connections around the area would be flexible since it will ease traffic. It is a project that would add more value to the existing infrastructure in around London."

Opportunity South Essex
"Opportunity South Essex (OSE) represents the Business Community across South Essex, covering the local authority areas of Thurrock, Brentwood, Basildon, Castle Point, Southend and Rochford. OSE is very supportive of the new Lower Thames Crossing because of the transformative effect it will have on the economy and prosperity of South Essex and North Kent. It will bring these two economies much closer, improving access to markets, employment and training opportunities. It will also significantly benefit UK plc more broadly by removing a significant bottleneck in the UK's transport network."

Patricia Ann Sparrow
"My representation relates to the concerns I have with the following: 1) the plan as submitted does not resolve the issues with the existing crossing and therefore does not provide value to the taxpayer at the estimated cost, let alone the likely eventual cost 2) it destroys valuable agricultural land at a time when our economy needs it most 3) it is environmentally destructive in terms of loss of habitat and green space 4) it increases health risks to residents through increased noise, light and air pollution 5) it fails against WHO standard for PM2.5 6) it puts a huge barrier through the heart of Thurrock, dividing communities 7) the local roads WILL NOT cope with the extra traffic demands during the construction phase, placing additional strains on local communities 8) despite consuming huge areas of land, the LTC road system north of the river has serious shortcomings in terms of connectivity"

Patrick Lewarne
"To ensure that the new road does not suffer from the problems built into previous schemes. Also that the road works necessary to build the new road do not make a large impact on the existing infrestucture."

Paul Scott
"I am concerned at the environmental aspects and that forms the basis of my representation in this process."

Paula Boeg
"I am interested to know why this project is still being considered . Taking into consideration the negative environmental impact, the loss of green belt, devastation to ancient woodlands and wildlife habitat and the fact it will not solve any current congestion issues. On the contrary. Congestion and pollution will increase . I would also like to know how the estimated amount of money it will cost can be justified due to the countries, current, economic crisis."

Paula Clarke
"I confirm that I will be part of this process and agree that the Lower Thames crossing is a well needed transport requirement to alleviate traffic between Essex and North Kent"

Peter Alan Braben
"I am STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT I suspect the developers of this project are so focused on their profitability, they have forgotten we have a Climate Crisis. What we need right now is fewer roads, and less road-transport; not more! If we build more roads, we will attract MORE traffic. That is how the world works. We need to build ALTERNATIVES to more roads. This development is being forced through, and I seriously question how the developers have "incentivised" people to support these plans, because they are 100% against the National and Local interests. We already breathe fumes all the time, and our climate is already changing. PLEASE don't make it even worse. I am so worried about this issue, I have SORN'ed my own car, and I cycle up to 45 miles each way to work - because we all need to make sacrifices to make a difference. This is a crisis; an emergency. I don't block roads or deface paintings in protest - but I have made SERIOUS changes in my own life to be more environmentally aware - and it appalls me to see us building yet more roads, and apparently with a "straight face". What is the point in soem of us making sacrifices, when others - developers that means you - trample all over the environment in the name of profit. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Block this truly awful project; to call it a white elephant is to devalue its detrimental impact - this is a tragedy in the making. In time, every single person involved in supporting this project will be marking themselves down as an author of our collective destruction. Please don't be that person; please don't be the enabler who was "only following orders", whilst we build roads paving the way to our own tragic destruction. We have more than enough roads. Just stop this one; stop it NOW. If you are involved in any way in this project, just make it STOP."

Peter Graves
"I want to put forwards an argument supporting the second crossing allowing traffic to have an alternative route and take traffic away from the Current crossing. There may be a need to improve connecting roads in Essex as a result"

Peter Hill
"I am concerned about the crossing charges as there will be no viable way off crossing the river from kent without paying a fee"

Peter Masson
"On completion of the project there will be a toll for users. And this being an additional cost for motorists in the south east."

Peter Saunders
"As a thirty-year resident of Chadwell St Mary I am aware of the above average incidence of respiratory ailments here. I have seen a substantial increase in all traffic locally, owing to new housing and commercial developments here and in neighbouring wards. This has had a detrimental effect on the local environment in terms of noise and air-quality; an increase in noise-level here has resulted from a higher traffic-levels on the A13, which in part parallels to proposed route of the new Lower Thames Crossing (LTC). I am concerned that construction and usage of the proposed LTC will make a bad situation worse: during construction the planned extra traffic movements will increase noise and air-pollution, and add to congestion on local roads already closed to capacity; the proposed LTC will cut a swath through this ward, reduce green space and the footpath network available to residents. The proposed LTC is supposed to relieve congestion at the existing crossing point of the Thames at Dartford. I have many times noticed, when driving back to Essex northbound on the M25 that congestion is always bad north of the A20/M20 junction up to the crossing, and it is said that the proposed new LTC will relieve this. If most – if not all – of the northbound traffic is bound for the Midlands or North of England then I think it unlikely that it will avail itself of an alternative(?) route that would add 25+ miles to its journey, which is what using the proposed new crossing would do. Furthermore, if the proposed new crossing’s route were to be blocked at any point by an RTC then the resultant tailback and congestion would not only affect the M25 but some local feeder roads in Kent and Essex and bring them to a standstill; this would have a dangerous impact on the emergency services. For these reasons I am opposed to the Lower Thames Crossing."

Peter Skelton
"We need this cossing to alleviate the Dartford crossings"

Phil Stanier
"I believe that the new crossing is needed and would like to be kept informed about the process."

Philip Rickard
"I am a regular user of the Dartford Crossing and a second crossing is required to cope with current traffic congestion."

Ralph Cochrane
"My representation will be based on the following: 1. Design and fit for purpose. Value for money. 2. Effect on the Environment, Noise, pollution, Human health, wildlife and habitats, green belts, SSSI's etc. 3. Local infrastructure improvements. 4. Proof that the Tunnel will improve the flow of traffic. 5. Benefits to the local community. 6. Effect on the community and local area during construction. 7. Actual cost and actual time to build."

Ray Sheehan
"I have two but I suppose you could say, very similar:1, I’m more then worried about the noise pollution and all the inconvenience of a project that is going to take, let’s say two/ three yrs to complete.:2, I saw where Highways England, was showing me, literally a few hundred meters from where I live could be a place where trucks and parts towards this tunnel will be parked, which was unclear at the time, when showing us as their was two parts, that and was unsure about which one would be used. But a building site where people live and children go to school, is asking too much of the people that live in and around that area, I know this because s only a talking shop and your just going through the motions that the government has said you must full fill, I suppose you call it.. democracy."

Raymond Jackson
"I believe this is a very necessary road and crossing to be built to reduce the congestion at the current Dartford Crossing. Whilst I am a car driver only I believe it will greatly improve truck traffic accessibility across the river"

Rebekah Marsh
"In a broad sense I support the principle of the lower Thames crossing between Kent and Essex. I believe for optimum outcomes for the economies of Kent and Essex, the South East Region, the Environment, and the local communities; I believe the best points for the crossing are east of Gravesend and east of Southend in Essex. This will relieve traffic, congestion and pollution at the Dartford crossing and Thurrock and reduce pollution there. It will also open-up the areas of East Anglia and reduce congestion on the M25 north of the River Thames. It should not encroach on the wildlife and bird breading areas of the Thames estuary."

Ripe Now Limited
"Reference Lower Thames Crossing Dear Sir, The Lower Thames Crossing is really important to us as a business, it means we can get more reliable traffic in to us here in South Lincolnshire, more quickly getting our fruit to the end consumer when they need it, in the right condition. Ripe Now is based on 2 sites in Boston Lincolnshire, we ripen Bananas, Avocados, stone fruit and Mango and what you see daily on the major retailers shelves and chill units very likely emanated from a Ripening centre such as ours. Road transport is very important to our business, all fruit from all around the world, arrives at our ripening centre by road from all UK major ports in the South East of The UK and is then shipped to the major retailers and food service businesses from our site Nationwide, including back in to the South East. We are heavily reliant on Road haulage , and it is key to getting our fruit from the ports and from The Continent, from Italy and Spain, in good condition and on time. This fruit passes through Kent and Essex in to our hub and back out again to our key customers via our Haulage partners. We have up to 20 movements a day from this region inbound, with probably half of this then going back in the SE direction. The impact of The Lower Thames Crossing to our business would be very positive indeed, if we could then rely on vehicles getting fruit to us in minimum lead times. The current scenario using The Dartford Crossing means that many of our inbound vehicles can get delayed for just a couple of hours, which in reality , due to driver hour regulations, can mean an additional day before they arrive, creating quality issues and affecting the cost of storage in terms of available capacity. The impact of having The Lower Thames Crossing would definitely be a positive affect on our business, meaning we can have more reliable lead times, plan better for intake and storage, and use our ripening rooms more efficiently. In turn this means we can give an even more reliable service to the consumer, getting ripened product to them more cost effectively and more quickly. Yours Sincerely, [Redacted]"

Robert Hall
"Sort out the traffic problems on joining the tunnel at the A2 before proceeding with this unpopular project. It’s going to destroy this area completely."

Robin Dodridge
"I simply wish to exhort the planning authorities to expedite the necessary planning permissions. To my mind, the application has already been through an extensive consultation process, within which I commented, and the project designers have made significant adjustments so as to accommodate, within the bounds of common sense and cost, the objections and concerns raised by a number of parties. In the meantime, significant damage is being done to the environment and tot he economy, both local and national, by the continuing, regular congestion which occurs on the Dartford Crossing, its approaches and the M25-M11 corridor, all of which will be eased significantly by this project. Thank you"

Robin Eatwell
"I support this plan as the current arrangements for crossing the Thames are not sufficient for the needs of the existing population. And with housing continuing to grow the demand for access across the Thames will continue to grow."

Roger Slade
"This proposed crossing does little to remedy the problems seen at Dartford on a regular basis but destroys communities and agricultural land."

Ronald F.C.Ower
"I am very concerned over if the project proceeds . The inconvenience to residents in North Ockendon ,Upminster and Cranham. Where it has been reported that Ockendon Road in particular could be blocked for around two years ! North Ockendon has a conservation area and I am concerned over any proposed lorry yard etc near the local Church in Church Lane. Also very concerned over noise and the loss of trees and vegetation in our area !"

Roy Clare
"I support the Lower Thames Crossing and welcome the details so far provided to the public. It is daily self-evident that a second crossing over the Thames is long overdue. The existing arrangements are hopelessly clogged, even on good days. As an Essex resident, with interests in Kent, I am frequently delayed and often frustrated by the inefficiency of the QE2 bridge and associated tunnels. The new Lower Thames crossing can't happen soon enough. The chosen route and the various junctions - as viewed on the fly-through - appear reasonable and workable."

Roy Meleady
"I believe the consultation has been flawed because I have attended several meetings and have had bridge experts fail to explain tunnel issues at each meeting. I have asked fo an expert who can discuss the HE health impact assessment. I was told one would be done but I cannot find it published. In my view this tunnel and bridge will not relieve congestion on the m25 it will just move it from the bridge to Brentwood and m11. The maps supplied by HE are not to accurate scale and prevent clarity of how close the pollution will be caused, by the new road, to schools and residential areas. HE are proposing to building a motorway standard road with smart traffic technology which has been halted on motorways. HA appear to be trying to circumvent this ban by designating the tunnel road as an A road, when clearly it will be built and used as a smart motorway."

Rydon Homes Limited
"The impact of the proposals on the village of Shorne with particular reference to it's setting within the Green Belt and traffic movement."

Sally Templeton
"Traffic congestion."

Simon Winter
"PLEASE. Make sure that sound control measures are substantial and adequate. The current noise from the M25 is awful and is making many peoples lives an abject misery, please please don’t add to this."

Stephen Brennan
"Concerns on proposed project; 1. South Ockendon where I live will be surrounded (if this project goes ahead) by three major arterial roads. This in short will mean we will be exposed to excessive airborn and noise pollution from every direction. 2. Thurrock has high levels of pollution which already exceed legal limits in several areas. With reference to the above; this project (In its present form and route) will make this worse. 3. Thurrock has a higher incidence of childhood asthma than the national average. Again, with referance to point one, this project (in its present form and route ) fails to address this concern. 4. I am Concerned that recent studies show a firm links between chronic respiratory disease and degenerative brain disease such as alzheimers and dementia and road traffic pollution. Current trends within London are to reduce (where possible) road traffic and residents exposure to unnecessary pollution, and I would suggest that this road would be (if current research and data were used and acted on) moved Eastwards away from Thurrock, and Located perhaps, along the route of the A128. 5. I would submit that designers of the project are going for the cheapest option, and this will (apart from the above) not be future proof or give long term value for Money. If we look at the model of the QE2 Bridge, this was (at the time of its inception) mooted as the final solution of the bottle neck of the Dartford Tunnel crossings. As we now know, this was not true and we now find ouselves building yet another road because of this. While accepting the need for another crossing, Surely local residents deserve a proper long term pollution free answer to this problem, and not another blight on our local communities by a short termist budget plan. Cheapest is always dearest in the long term, unfortunately we are not only referring to a financial issue here, but a rather large and looming health time bomb that will be created by this project. 6. I would ask who will be finacially responsible for any illnesses that can and will be directly linked to the pollution caused by the road. The financial burden of extra disease and treatment must be mitigated for, and also, there will be I am sure, fairly substantial compensation claims if the above issues are ignored in spite of the available data and evidence that are now available. 7. In Summary, with all the above taken into consideration I would suggest the overwhelming sensible descision would be to rethink the plan in its current form and route, and not (as it seems to be happening now) railroad it through and create an absolutely avoidable environmental disaster for the local area. How many more avoidable deaths from respiratory disease will it take before planners design road routes that are environmentally responsible and health conscious and really fit for the 21st century, and not just the shortest and cheapest rout between A and B."

Stephen Clark
"Access points to the new road"

Stephen Lang
"My personal main concerns include but are not limited to the following points.... - Would not solve the problems suffered at the Dartford Crossing yet also create further congestion points. - The increase in cross river traffic (estimated at around 50%) - Lack of adequate connections, especially when there are incidents - Increase in carbon emissions (estimated around 6.6 million tonnes) - The plan does not constitute value for money for the country / tax payer and alternative solutions are far more efficient. - Loss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland threatening food security - Destroy and impact woodland (inc ancient woodland), trees (inc ancient/veteran), hedgerows, greenbelt. - Devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected species - Increase in air and noise pollution, whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5 - No provision for cross river active travel, not viable for public transport due to lack of adequate connections - Destruction and impacts to homes and communities - Concerns about construction impacts - Doesn’t meet scheme objectives"

Stephen Ray
"Local resident who will be impacted by the scheme and so will review and comment on the local issues and local impacts."

Stuart Holpin
"I am fully in favour of the works as this will help to improve the area and the current infrastructure"

Terence Haines
"Concern about the effect of major works and activities on Thames Chase open space and its short & longterm impact on vegetation & wildlife."

Tevva Motors
"On behalf of Tevva Motors (Battery Electric and Hydrogen Electric Lorries) we wholly support the this project and in particular the aims to deliver the project at the lowest possible carbon intensity."

Thames and Medway Canal Association
"My interest is to ensure that both the canal and towpath are not permanently adversely affected by the construction of a 'temporary' plant compound adjacent to the canal at Milton Range. I trust more detail will be available prior to construction as to the works in and around this section of canal."

Thamesview Camping
"Objection letter. For the avoidance of doubt, we whole heartedly object to the proposed land grab of our campsite and land under the guise of environmental mitigation. The proposed use would be to mitigate the destruction to countryside caused by the new road built by highways. Our land is earmarked as Open mosaic habitat, Which explained to us would be an area of long grass alongside short grass, some manmade earth mounds and an ideal would be an area that has previously had burnt out vehicles and bare earth. This sounds absolutely absurd to us. We already have this in place with our management of the land. We are a Greener camping club site and have grown from strength to strength over the past few years. Originally started with 15 pitches and open March to October but due to our popularity with nature lovers and likeminded people we have expanded to 25 pitches and year round use. We are a Greener camping club site to provide Eco camping on the River Thames utilising the Trees for life scheme,  Every membership help us plant a tree on our site. We have excellent reviews for our green ethos and have been a regular go to place for authors such as Georgina Wilson-Powel founder of Pebble Magazine and with books like “Is it really green?”  And “The Eco Conscious Travel Guide”. Georgina_wp Morning. Coffee with a warm breeze and plenty of birdsong on a hidden spot of the Thames Estuary. Hard to believe opposite us is one of the UK’s busiest ports! Today’s the start of Weekend 3 in the 2022 great UK campervanning adventure... Stunning eco campsite with a grass labrynth to break up the views. @thamesviewcamping #vanlife #weekendaway #outsideisfree #optoutside#naturematters #exploreuk Also nothing but praise from media personality [Redacted] [Redacted] 5/5 3 months ago on Google A brilliant campsite that does deliver on its eco claims. The compost loos were some of the best we have found, the recycling points clear and comprehensive and the solar showers and wash area clean and efficient. The pitches were well thought out, the idea of mowing a sort of crop circle as your ‘territory’ was great, as was the fire pit and picnic bench. As a transport infrastructure geek, it was fascinating to walk along the Thames and look at the gateway to London and see the massive liners along the false horizon. There was a mini football pitch and lovely cows and horses and all the other guests were mindful of noise and pollution (no cars running just to charge their phones for example). [Redacted] was a great host, making this a great wee campsite and one we will be returning to. Everything. Close to home but right on the Thames and …25/07/2022 russ m.Confirmed ? ·          Non-electric grass tent or trailer tent pitch ·         Recommend to friends  Visit again ·           Liked:  Everything. Close to home but right on the Thames and surrounded by country side so although close to houses at front the drive takes you down to where there is brilliant pitches very clean eco toilets and showers. Fire pits available on pitch and dried wood to purchase. The whole site is surrounded by grasses and nature in abundance this is not brick city so relax with or without firepit and take in the best of this site, no disappointment to be had and would recommend this site to every lover of the country life. Fab easy to get to site to escape from London13/06/2022 ·          Non-electric grass and gravel touring pitch ·         Recommend to friends  Visit again ·           Liked:  Perfect small campsite. Fantastic mowed out pitches supplied with fire pit & picnic bench, surrounded by long meadow grass giving a sense of privacy. Compost loos very clean. Great walks to explore the nature reserve & estuary. Very calm & relaxing stay. We will definitely come back. In the last two years alone we have planted over 500 trees, sown over 50kg of meadow seed, installed an owl box which has residents, dredged drainage ditches that are now home to various aqua hydrophytes, water voles, small fish, the occasional Shell ducks and a Heron to name but a few. At various times of the year we have an abundance of wildlife visiting our campsite, three different varieties of bees found by ecologists who visited to numerous nesting breeding birds i.e. Woodpeckers, Robins, wren, gold finch, chaffinch, tits. Sand Martins nest in our huge dredge pile, Skylark, Reed Warbler, Marsh Harrier, owls of at least three varieties, red kite, Kestrels etc etc .  Adders are also on site but tend to keep to their self in far corners. In fact everything indigenous to our part of the world but not excluding a stork that hung about for a few months.  We have implemented various nesting sites and protect nests with necessary measures and controls. We regularly, if not daily monitor the land and wildlife. The pitches and pathways are mown into seeded tall grass meadow which hosts an abundance of butterfly and even rare meadow flowers as spotted by ecologists recently. Every year the site is fertilised and cared for. Each pitch is home to a fire pit which is moved periodically to allow the earth to recover.  We have been turning patches of grass over to encourage seeding of plants that may not have surfaced for a few or even many years. How can anyone possibly claim to mitigate anything by claiming our land? Nothing in their plans would better anything we have already done by a long way. Our campsite is and has been enjoyed by thousands of people and wildlife and hopefully we will continue to carry on with the dream. We cannot understand why Highways has not claimed the neighbouring brown field site with over a hundred acres next to us that has spent decades as landfill and only stopped trading in December? In summary: By grabbing our land there would be no mitigation but rather the opposite. Highways would like to use an established green field site for mitigation rather than a brown field site with at least 10 times our size which actually needs mitigation next door. Any habitation compensatory methods would negatively impact on the already thriving habitats we have on the land. We have areas with protected species already here and find it hard to believe that highways could justify jeopardising their habitat by turning over the ground regularly with a JCB as they described to us as a mitigation for destroying nearby land with a JCB! We would welcome the introduction of any suitable species that would need to be moved due to the highway on our campsite on the understanding it would have no negative impact on the wildlife we already have here. Sincerely                 [Redacted] Thamesview Camping"

Toby Larkin
"1) consultation 2) planning 3) future These are the areas I wish to submit on"

Tony Silver
"Building the Lower Thames Crossing as proposed will not solve the problem at the current Dartford Crossing. Building another two two bore tunnels next to the current tunnels would be more flexible and a lot cheaper than building a new road and proposed tunnel. The A13 can not cope with even a minor accident in either direction at present, so any new crossing at Tilbury will need further substantial widening of the A13 as well, particularly since the extensive building of more new homes at Lakeside which only adds to the local congestion. The new crossing will only compound the congestion problems in the area. If you insist on building this white elephant at Tilbury, then you must also build the additional tunnels at Dartford, as well as improve the access to the A13 at Lakeside in both directions. Currently if there’s an incident either at Dartford or on the A13, we end up with gridlock in all directions on the A13, Lakeside, Grays and surrounding areas. It’s a nightmare that will only get worse without additional tunnels at Dartford."

Trevor Barham
"Arrangements for emergency evacuation within tunnel. Will a new rule be introduced as Auto Stradas in Italy and AutoBahns in Germany where traffic must move over to Crash Barriers on Lane 3 and Lanes 1 & 2 move towards "hard Shoulder" to provide "Fire Lane" for emergency vehicles when traffic comes to a stand. What provision will be applied to manage motorists who ignore red X lane closed. Cameras and automatic large fines?"

Vincent Hancock
"Personal interests in flow of traffic affecting Dartford."

Wendy White
"I live in the area and strongly object to this project which will not resolve current traffic issues, creates air pollution and destroys countryside habitats and communities"

William Watson
"I intend to comment on the traffic effects either positive or negative on the flow of traffic on the M25."

Alex Bigham
"This scheme seems like a positive idea. I'm just interested in being kept updated on this scheme."

Andrew Craig
"At a time of climate crisis, combined with increasing road congestion, a new road project such as this one is entirely wrong. We should be changing our transport system to reduce the need for people to own and use individual motor vehicles, and investing instead in trains, other public transport, and active travel. Road projects like this induce further demand, so that their aim of reducing congestion on existing road or lanes is rarely achieved."

Annette Fletcher
"As a longstanding resident of Orsett, with ongoing health issues exacerbated by pollution, I have a vested interest on several levels in the planning of the Lower Thames Crossing."

Carol Lawson
"Further to your confirmation that more traffic will be diverted on to th A1089 which runs along the back of residence in Baker Street, Orsett and Orsett Heath can consideration be given to putting up sound barrier fencing along this route. This would give greater noise reduction to residence. If costs allow incorporate the new technology of moss to absorb fumes from the extra traffic to Tilbury Docks Freeport. Thank you for your consideration to my comments."

Colin Dearman
"I would like to support the design as suggested in the most recent video fly-through, that I viewed 10/01/23, because the main connections do not include roundabouts to connect to other roads. I have only one suggestion with the redesigned connection to the A127 is that the roundabout there be removed as well, taking this opportunity to do so. I appreciate that this last suggestion is a little late in the day."

Dan Harwood
"I admire the engineering of this new crossing but wonder about the need for such an undertaking in view of our intent to reduce our carbon footprint."

David Archer
"The Lower Thames Crossing as currently proposed is going to cause more congestion on the M25 and will do little to alleviate congestion on that and surrounding roads. Many years ago, a full upgrade was undertaken on the A120 from the M11 (near Stansted Airport) right through to Saddlers Farm island on the A13. The purpose of this upgrade was ( as advised at the time) to line up with the New Lower Lower Thames crossing that was due to go under the Thames at Canvey Island and regain land on Higham Marshes in Kent. This earlier plan had a lot of local support - mainly because it would remove all the traffic from East Anglia to the Tunnel / Channel ports from the M25. The link also gave a full alternative from the M1 to the channel via the already improved A414. So, the current proposal is deeply flawed and will certainly fail in one of its main aims of relieving the M25. As a result of the forgoing, I am strongly opposed to the proposed routing and methodoligy and would urge the originial plane (1980's - 90's?) be adopted instead"

David Spence
"As someone who has been held in slow moving traffic heading up the A2 and then been held up in heavy non-moving traffic jams at the Dartford crossing from both sides. This new Lower Thames crossing will reduce the commute and travel time to and from the Essex side of the M25 considerably. It will also provide an alternative route should there be delays further along the A2/M25."

Diana Childs
"The Lower Thames Crossing is too costly. It will relieve congestion in a very limited way because it will have to feed into existing roads within a very short distance from the crossing. The amount of concrete and tarmac covering useful land is too much and interferes with the natural landscape and environment detrimentally. A new container rail link would have been greener and cause less disruption to the environment."

Duncan Victor Simons
"I am a interested party who would be an end user I already have a Dart Account assume this would be along those lines"

Essex Wildlife Trust
"In respect of this development environmental sustainability is a paramount concern. An additional road based crossing of the Lower Thames is not, in our view, environmentally sustainable. We believe that new large infrastructure projects such as this should capitalise on the opportunity to encourage a shift towards low emission forms of transport such as public transport, rail and cycling. Notwithstanding these concerns, it is our aim to ensure that the delivery of this project has the minimum impact on the natural environment. In responding to this consultation we aim to ensure: • appropriate recognition is afforded to the internationally and nationally important habitats and the species they support within and adjacent to the development area; • a clear understanding of the impacts of the development on habitat connectivity; • a full understanding of the impacts of the development on nature conservation interests, including priority habitats and species; and • appropriate measures are identified to avoid, mitigate or, where necessary, compensate for those impacts. Essex Wildlife Trust objects to the plans for the Lower Thames Crossing. We have serious concerns about the impact of these proposals on the wildlife and habitats of Essex. We accept that the choice of a bored tunnel avoids direct impacts on the internationally important wetland and coastal habitats of the Thames Estuary Ramsar/Special Protection Area. However, the location of the tunnel portal to the north of the crossing (and the potential works area associated with the tunnel portal) will destroy habitats of importance for protected water voles, reptiles and rare invertebrates. The new road will also result in impacts on designated Local Wildlife Sites and priority habitats, including ancient woodland. Overall, the new road will have a serious detrimental impact on the south Essex landscape. It will result in loss or damage to important habitats and fragmentation of the habitats that remain, with accompanying impacts on protected and priority species, including biodiversity loss, habitat damage, pollution, noise, road lighting and the visual intrusion of ‘man-made’ infrastructure. New roads should be considered only as a last resort and as part of a sustainable transport strategy, which should be strategically planned and fully integrated with conservation objectives and the land use planning process. This should: • prioritise environmentally sensitive maintenance and improvement of the current road network over new road schemes; • reduce the need to travel, for example through well designed towns, cities and neighbourhoods, and improved transport technology; • promote less carbon intensive forms of transport; • promote reductions in private vehicle use in order to reduce traffic levels, fuel consumption and vehicle emissions, including fiscal measures and car share schemes; • minimise dependency on private vehicle use by increasing and improving public transport and active travel routes, which are well connected to essential services; • promote walking, cycling and other forms of active travel and promote active travel routes which are easy, safe and attractive to use; and • ensure biodiversity is protected and enhanced through the creation of new habitat networks. We have major concerns that the LTC will encourage increased car dependency and generate induced traffic. At the same time it will cause serious environmental damage, adversely impacting on biodiversity and increasing CO2 emissions which contribute to climate breakdown. This contradicts the Government’s own target set in the Environment Act 2021 to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030, and the commitment to reach net zero by 2050, including a pathway that requires 78% reduction in emissions by 2035. We will be rigorously seeking appropriate mitigation and compensation for the lost or damaged habitats, impacts on protected and priority species and opportunities to enhance, restore or create new habitats as part of the local ecological network. Our aim will be to ensure that if the scheme goes ahead there will be a significant net biodiversity gain as a result of this project. The areas of concern we wish to address through the DCO consultation process are: • Impacts on birds and the scheme’s proposed mitigation and compensation • Impacts on mammals and the scheme’s proposed mitigation and compensation • Impacts on reptiles and amphibians and the scheme’s proposed mitigation and compensation • Impacts on freshwater habitats and the scheme’s proposed mitigation and compensation • Impacts on terrestrial habitats (plants, grasslands, hedgerows, woodlands, veteran trees, etc) and the scheme’s proposed mitigation and compensation • Impacts on invertebrates and the scheme’s proposed mitigation and compensation • Impacts on marine habitats and the scheme’s proposed mitigation and compensation • The veracity of the Environmental Impact Assessment • The suitability of the Landscape and Environmental Management Plan • The veracity of the Biodiversity Net Gain assessment • The reduction of environmental damage through good design • The creation, enhancement and management of functioning ecological networks, associated wildlife habitats and key species populations • Ensuring that all proposed landscaping is appropriate to the natural character and ecological functionality of the area."

Frank Woollard
"The road where it crosses Orsett Fen via a viaduct will be an unsightly concrete mess on the only green belt area in Thurrock. The noise and pollution created will be immense and this will get worse with all the rubbish associated with a three lane motorway. The cost is a very high price to pay for a scheme that only results in a minor reduction to the traffic flow across the Dartford Crossing. The damage caused to Orsett a conservation village with the connecting roads has not been fully appreciated as no three dimensional model has ever been produced to illustrate this to the residents. These complaints have been raised many times but there seems no stopping this scheme. Whilst The Dartford Crossing needs help this is not the way to deal with it and at the end of the day traffic is just sent on a detour which returns it to the existing M25 already overloaded at that point ."

Frederick Kilner
"1. The new crossing will relieve the congestion on the existing Dartford crossing 2. From the fly through and the following text the work will be carbon neutral 3. Air pollution adjacent to the existing crossing will be reduced as congestion will also be reduced."

Gary Davies
"the new road is in the wrong place ,it should be going under the present road . and the new road has no turn for tilbury.The present plan uses the Orsett cock roundabout which make the junction totally unuse able"

George Fereday
"I oppose the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) for the following reasons: • The LTC is estimated to emit more than 7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide during construction and the first 60 years of operation. This scale of carbon emission contradicts the UK Government’s legally binding commitment to achieve net zero carbon by 2050. • Highways England’s data demonstrates that the project will not solve congestion at the Dartford crossing – the reason for which the LTC scheme was proposed. The Dartford crossing will remain over capacity once the LTC is operational. The scheme is not fit for purpose and an extremely poor investment of public funds. • The LTC does not provide good value for money to the public. The national audit office projected the LTC scheme will cost £9bn, an increase of £1.9bn since March 2020 and significantly higher than the £6.4bn cost publicised during the public consultation period. This huge amount of money should be spent on green public transport infrastructure, not new polluting roads that accelerate climate change. • The project will destroy and permanently degrade multiple ancient woodlands and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) that are supposed to be legally protected habitats. This is contrary to the UK Government’s own commitments to invest in Nature Recovery signed at COP 17 this year. The LTC construction and operation will only achieve accelerated ecocide in the region. • Air pollution in proximity to the LTC is forecast to exceed World Health Organisation standards for PM2.5 emissions (fine particulate matter most associated with chronic disease and poor health outcomes). There will be long standing collateral impacts of this continuous air pollution on local public health and a hidden associated cost to the NHS and local authorities. This was not addressed fully in the public consultation. • During the consultation period Highways England made the following claim on the public consultation website for the Lower Thames Crossing: “Air quality: improved across the region.” This constituted disinformation. This and other misleading statements during the public consultation process that meant the public could not make an objective and informed decision on the air quality and other local impacts of the LTC. Air quality in Gravesend and Thurrock will not “improve” as a result of the scheme. • The LTC will have a dramatically negative impact on regional biodiversity both during construction. Vast quantities of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, PM2.5, PM 10, light and noise pollution will result from the scheme in perpetuity. • The impact of local residents’ quality of life in Gravesham and Thurrock will be very negative during the construction phase of the project and throughout operation. Periods of 24 construction, traffic congestion, noise and air pollution will make life a misery for local residents in perpetuity. • There is no acknowledgement of the loss of the many newly planted trees that will occur as a result of woodland thinning operations required to maintain newly planted woodlands. Many of the saplings will also die due to pests, diseases, lack of irrigation. This makes the LTC environmental mitigation misleading green-wash."

Graham Bates
"I have concerns over the A228 at North Halling through to Cuxton. The Halling Bypass ends at the new Redrow Housind Development and the A228 is a dangerous place to be at peak times. My concerns include an increase in volume of traffic as the A228 is an obvious route from the M20 to the new Lower Thames Crossing. Bush Road Cuxton is also a concern as is th roundabout at the junction of the A228 and the M2. The A228 is already at capacity at peak times and something needs doing to mitigate the increase of traffic when the new Lower Thames Crossing is introduced."

Ingrebourne Valley Limited
"We currently operate a significant PFA supply and extraction operation and a significant land restoration scheme of which the Lower Thames Crossing will have a severe impact."

James Gillies
"Having been a regular user of the Dartford Crossing for a number of years, it is obvious that the Bridge Crossing at Dartford is far quicker and less prone to delay than the Tunnel Crossing at Dartford. Your application for this new crossing by tunnel is likely to cause more delay than using a bridge would. Why do you not use a new bridge crossing rather than a tunnel?"

Jeremy Stanyard
"I wish to have an input to ensure a that the arguments put forward, both for and against the proposals are data-driven and that they debate is not 'hijacked' by narrow vested interests"

John Awty
"I would like the opportunity to comment on this piece of infrastructure that I will probably use a few times a year. I have a degree in Land Surveying and have not only worked a dozen years as a surveyor but then had a career as a Geography teacher with an interest in the environment. I have not read or studied the updates. I just wanted to register my interest."

John Cooper
"I fully support the best, environmental and legal endeavours for this project."

John Otley
"I am currently fully supportive of this initiative and wish to continue to be fully appraised of its development."

June Watson
"We live close to the M25 A127 junction and this will have quite an impact on our lives. The traffic noise is on great concern as it is bad enough now. As a regular user of the Dartford crossing, Something has to be done to alleviate the traffic between essex and Kent but a bridge further down the Thames would have been a better option. That the residential roads are restricted to so no heavy vehicles have access to the works The works should provide their own road system and they should be restricted to daytime noise only"

Kevin Tilson
"Net neutral carbon emissions - whilst the scheme and its objectives have merit e.g. improving the situation for Dartford/its residents as well as faster flowing access to motorways, the "policy" of net neutral across the route basically says in order to achieve that, other sites will be dramatically impacted and will go way way above permitted EU emission limits. Sorry but that is wrong. There might have to be some adverse impact but everything possible should be done to have mitigations at those specific sites, not just relying on carbon offset elsewhere on the route. Carbon emission cherry picking - the location near my house is the southern tunnel entrance. Moved back so a little improvement but the carbon emission stats use a sensor showing 5k traffic increasing to 10k (Rochester Road/Castle Lane) whereas less than 100m away there will be 122k vehicles per day throwing out their emissions. Be transparent, be honest. Longitudinal tunnels/fans - essentially all the emissions in the tunnel are being blown out either end of the tunnel by longitudinal fans. No air filters/purifiers, no trees around the entrance to help, just blown out and up in the air. A National Highways rep told me it will be fine as the emissions will come out and rise upwards. Failing to acknowledge they might go up but thing called gravity and rainfall means that they will soon fall down on the surrounding villages of Chalk, Thong, Shorne etc which has not been taken into account in the emissions/impact. Lot of the impact is about newts, birds, protected marshlands but what about people? I bought my house knowing the field next to my road (between Castle and Church Lane) was green belt, could never be built on and we had covenants saying if anything happened to the Church (Church Lane) that we would be liable. Now and 8-lane 2 tunnel motorway is being built underground. Other side of the road is protected marshland so bought my house knowing no development could happen here, but given an NSIP scheme it overrides local planning but that should not mean the impact is not mitigated. Offset is not the same as mitigations but the cost has obviously increased too much to do direct mitigations which is explicitly stated in the DPO which was very displeasing. Park spaces - great that new park spaces, not great that put one at the southern tunnel entrance e.g. where 122k vehicles per day emissions will be blown. Please learn the lessons from Dartford and the massive spike in Asthma cases following the tunnels/bridge opening. Dont ensure all local children then afflicted by asthma and no, we dont have a choice to move, as we put our house on the market - at below market value - and still could not sell due to 2 x 4-lane tunnels being built next door but we are 100m outisde the red zone so we get all the emissions, all the ground vibrations, all the disruption during construction and operation but have no choice but to live with it so make it the safest and cleanest you can please, not that somewhere else 20 miles away benefits and that offsets the devastation at my and other locations. Those air pollution limits were put in for a reason. cost - quite clearly given recent hyper inflation following russia/ukraine impact that costs must have increase but this is not shown in any of the DCO or the latest updates e.g. what is the latest cost, does this still represent value for money and is the "value engineering" (e.g. cost cutting) measures impacting the outcomes of the scheme? One of which was to minimise impact but rather than looking at impact of all, now a re-focus (due to cost) to only look at carbon offset and not at carbon mitigations at the sights where the impact is at its worse. Very disappointing and whilst Dartford and other areas improve - that is good, they need an improvement - but it should not be to the detriment of other people. Is like saying to a 3rd world country we will save those 100 people by giving them medicine but we will fund that by taking the food budget from those other 100 people over there. An extreme example but the emissions will kill people and will place future unfunded and uncosted demands on the NHS through asthmas and other breathing related diseases. That is just from the tunnel entrance / longitudinal fans / no mitigations, yet you are encouraging more people to get ill by putting park areas right next to the worst affected spaces. Pretty shocking."

Lauren Rayner
"In summary, I believe permission to build the LTC should not be granted following reasons: -HE have not adequately assessed flood risks and the impact of rising water levels over the coming decades. Nor were assessments of the impact of LTC on air quality, nitrogen deposition and woodlands and wildlife made available during the consultation process. Independent Advisor, [Redacted], has stated that the entire route would fail against WHO PM2.5 standards designed to help protect human health. The impact of air pollution exceeding those limits is well documented in the scientific literature. Local people will die as a direct result of toxic air resulting from the construction and operation of this scheme, years of healthy human life will be lost, and children’s cognitive functioning and mental and physical health will be adversely impacted. Irreplaceable ancient woodlands and habitats for endangered species including newts, water voles and bats and rare fungi will be lost, and SSSIs will be damaged. Noise and light pollution and nitrogen deposition will have further deleterious effects on biodiversity. Compensation planting of saplings on existing grasslands and green bridges will in no way mitigate the loss of ancient woodlands, which have singular benefits in terms of carbon sequestion, biodiversity and as a public amenity. - The cost of the LTC to taxpayers is estimated to be at least £9 billion. At a time when public debt is spiralling, and huge spending is needed to bolster the NHS and decarbonise the economy, it is perverse to spend this sum on a scheme that will, by Highways England's own projections, fail to resolve congestion problems at Dartford. - The LTC will emit an estimated 7million tonnes of carbon in the first 60 years of operation. Granting permission for this scheme would be a regressive step running counter to the government's transport decarbonisation plans and legally binding pledge to be carbon neutral by 2050. - Misinformation and greenwashing has been rife throughout the rounds of consultations. Highly dubious statements like ‘the LTC will improve air quality’ and ‘will have no impact on nitrogen deposition’ have been presented to the public without any data."

Marc Dobroch
"I think this is a good idea and long overdue it will ease Congestion around the Thurrock and dartford areas when there Are issues with the dartford crossing"

Michael Bilton
"I have still some concern and lack of knowledge regarding final route, and more importantly the time scale for construction. The impact that problems on the existing crossing continue to significantly impact on our life in Thurrock"

Michael Newens
"Environmental Impact. Social impact in North Kent Impact on road congestion National Infrastructure Level of consultation"

Mike Peters
"Myself and my family are regular motorists travelling from Kent to south Essex for family reasons (and returning), often undertaking a journey in both directions on the same day. We use the existing Dartford Crossing, which in our experiences over the past 20 years or so, is more often (very often) heavily congested in both directions for large parts of the day. This results in delays, and has often added at least an extra hour to our journey times in each direction. The resultant impact of the delays at the Dartford Crossing on ground and air pollution, noise levels, the economy, and additional use of fuel in continuous 'stop-start' traffic, is making the Dartford crossing increasingly unpleasant and untenable. The proposed new Lower Thames Crossing is well designed, has numerous high grade mitigation measures and advanced environmental, landscape and open space improvements. On this basis, in my opinion, it deserves full support."

Mr Richard Claridge
"Although the principal idea is sound and would ease congestion on existing routes the largest concern to be reviewed is environmental impact within the build and compounding of traffic issues due to build of the tunnel at various stages."

Mrs Heather E Colver
"I am in favor of the crossing as currently the Dartford Crossing causes many interruptions to the flow of traffic and serious congestion on the M25 between Juctions 1-3."

Michael Gray on behalf of Mrs Janet Vera Gray
"My mother lives on Ockendon Road and this has deeply affected her health over the last few years - I will be representing her views so this is very much an initial list of things she has showed concerns over Destruction and impacts to homes and communities - her precious home is to be demolished Devastating impact to ancient woodland, trees (inc ancient/veteran), hedgerows, greenbelt Devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected species Loss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland threatening food security Does not believe this is a future proof solution - already fails its objectives Waste of over £10bn+, not value for money, false economy as other spending would be needed as direct result Will actually increase traffic Lack of adequate connections, especially when there are incidents Safety concerns since the proposed LTC would be a ‘Smart’ Motorway by stealth Increase in emissions (rumoured to be several million tonnes) Increase in air and noise pollution Concerns about construction It is hard to express in words how devastated she is - it has had such a hold over her mental wellbeing and general health since it was 'decided' - in her situation it seems simply a cruel money saving decision to plough through her tiny community rather than use an alternative less impactful route."

Mrs Lin Weiss
"The Lower Thames Crossing has, to date, been through several consultations all of which have included strong opposition from local residents concerned that the crossing will divide communities and ravage the little countryside that Thurrock still retains. There is no evidence that the stated claim of ‘greenest road’ can be supported. It requires the destruction of ancient woodland. Older trees have been proven to be a good source for carbon capture. It will be many years before the new replacement trees will be capable of carrying out this function. During consultation it was clearly stated that the new route would be used for the re routing of hazardous cargo, away from the Dartford Crossing, yet it travels close to schools and communities. The recently released fly through does not accurately or clearly show the impact this will have on local communities both during construction, when, as has already been admitted during consultation, local routes will be unusable, and afterwards on completion. Our future depends on the greatest efforts to reduce traffic to protect our environment. National Highways cannot predict with any accuracy the amount of traffic this new road will carry. The stated aims aims of the three crossings at Dartford was to reduce and ease travel substantially which clearly hasn’t happened. This project has to date used vast sums of money and cannot be guaranteed to come within budget regardless of the current economic climate. There are other options, with far less impact, which should be considered."

Nick Andrews
"As an occasional user of the M25, M20 and M2 motorways by car and motorcycle, a rambler and a lover of nature, I can see both the tremendous advantages of the Lower Thames Crossing and the potential problems that may arise during the applicants sensitive consideration of the requirements of maintaining existing land access by footpaths, bridleways and byways, as well as the maintenance and protection of existing flora and fauna. I will be studying all current off-road routes affected by the new motorways and roads to ensure that access is maintained for walkers and riders. Conserving the living history of these byways is very important for all who enjoy access to countryside which is fast disappearing. The countryside around the entire route will inevitably undergo huge changes, so while I examine each affected byway I will also consider local changes to wildlife around those byways that could harm and detract from the enjoyment of the countryside that so many enjoy, now and in the future."

Ardent Management Limited on behalf of Orsett Golf Club
"Ardent acts on behalf of Orsett Golf Club which is registering as an Interested Party. Orsett Golf Club is a well-respected 125-year-old golf club that will be significantly affected by construction of the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC). The Club has a full membership and supplies recreation facilities for the local community to enjoy. The building of a six-lane motorway very close to the course will reduce the environmental quality, amenity and enjoyment of the course for users and therefore risks both the reputation of the golf club and value of the course. This is reflected in the DCO Application Environmental Statement, which identifies a ‘Moderate Adverse’ visual impact (which in the Club’s opinion, is an underestimate) and a ‘Major Adverse’ increase in noise of over 5dB(A) over the majority of the course, with the balance subject to a ‘Moderate Adverse’ noise impact (over 3 to under 4.9dB(A)). Amendments to the original route has moved the planned road closer to the course and the decision to no longer lay the road in a cutting will not only add to the noise and visual impact but has necessitated the movement of the large gas main that runs along the Brentwood Road that will require the gas authority to undertake large land movements causing disruption and damage to the wooded boundary and (potentially) to the 9th Hole Championship tee. The Club acknowledges National Highways’ (NH) view that the LTC is needed to reduce traffic congestion and pollution, and welcomes its intention to lessen the impact of the motorway on those affected along the route. However, the Club feels strongly that NH could assist it in mitigating some of the damage the chosen route of the LTC will have on the course. Screen Planting The road will be clearly visible and constantly heard along the southern boundary of the course, and the Club has a stated aim to reduce the impact of this with screening. The Club is aware that NH has set itself a target of planting a million trees to offset the carbon effects of the LTC project and believes NH’s agreement to fund tree planting and fencing to provide screening for the course, would be consistent with this objective. To help improve the visual impact and reduce noise, the Club feels large, mature tree transplanting that hides the motorway is not the answer and favors the less expensive option of planting a leylandii hedge (conifer) and then planting more native trees in front of the hedge close to the southern boundary on the 9th hole that will eventually hide most of the leylandii hedge. This will help give all year-round screening. The native trees the Club plans to use are already successful on the course, so that good survival rates can be expected. An irrigation system will also need to be installed (by in-house staff) to ensure the trees flourish. Valuation. The Club also feels, having regard to the possible loss of amenity and reputation that might arise as a result of construction of the LTC that it needs to commission a company to value the course now, so that there is a base value to work from at a later date. It seeks NH’s agreement that the cost of this valuation will be reimbursed. Land Permanently Acquired It would be helpful if NH could provide an early indication of the value it places on the land it intends to acquire from the Club permanently, although it is accepted that this might change slightly by the date the land is vested. Rabbit Fence The Club is pleased that NH intends to purchase land surrounding the golf course for planting in order to further offset the carbon impacts of the Lower Thames Crossing project and wholly supports this initiative. However, such land is a breeding place for rabbits and rabbits can inflict terrible damage to a golf course. The Club therefore further requests that to keep rabbits off the course, it is agreed that on the exact boundary between the land to be used for planting and the course, an appropriate and reliable rabbit fence is erected and maintained by NH. Bat Boxes The Club is aware that NH wishes it to accommodate bat-boxes on the course in various positions and maintain them for a set number of years. The Club is happy to accept the principle of this proposal, subject to detailed agreement. Summary The Club is looking for NH to enter into an agreement to fund screening, planting, irrigation, rabbit fencing and land valuations and considers that such an agreement will help reduce a future compensation claim. An agreement of the type that is being proposed could also set out parameters for how NH and the Club will interface with each other during construction of the Lower Thames Crossing, to minimise any losses that might be incurred during that period."

Patricia Janice Lang
"A waste of money and not the answer to problems with the Dartford Crossing. A massive impact on the environment bringing further heavy traffic to the area requiring extensive changes to the infrastructure of the surrounding land not only for it's construction but in building the supporting network of roads, service areas etc. Farmland and homes would be destroyed. Noise and air pollution increased in an already densely populated area."

Paul Mercer
"As a regular traveller to Scotland from Kent I am entirely in favour of this proposal on the basis that it continues to be managed in the open and transparent manner that I believe it has to date. I expect any concerns I might have towards the environmental impact of this development will be properly addressed from what I have seen and heard at the public consultations held in 2022. Thank you for considering my submission."

Paul Reed
"I support this proposal for a new road link from A2/M2 and to join the M25 north of the Dartford Crossing The main reason for my support is that it will reduce the conjestion at the Dartford crossing reducing the traffic fumes produced from all the vehicles queuing to cross the thames either on the bridge or going through the tunnel. Other reason is that it will save many lost hours, income and revenue spent sitting in ques waiting to make the crossing."

Peter North
"The tunnel should be sighted further to the east of Thurrock Inappropriate sighting of the service area Development to close to domestic housing Increased pollution adding further risk to public health Inadequate road infrastructure to access the new proposal causing further local disruption"

Richard Edward Meredith
"Dartford Crossing is a bottleneck in traffic flows, which creates a high risk of failure. A second route nearby but far enough from the local community is an essential countermeasure:- with benefits economically, environmentally, safety, and leveling up."

Richard Jones
"The construction of this Lower Thames Crossing is not only crucial to the economic viability of our Country but also vital, so that us local residents do not have to suffer the enormous backlog of traffic, in Bexley and Dartford, which is created at busy times."

Robert Cassels
"I wish to ensure that the environment is given full consideration"

Robert Rudge
"My representation will include why I am against this planned development. It is a costly, environmentally disastrous, civil engineering project that is in the wrong place. Many better options have been discounted and yet Highways England / National Highways has resolutely stuck to ‘Plan C’ throughout the last few years. Costs of the project have dramatically increased, environmental issues seem to have been blurred. If an M25 / A282 relief road project was started today it would not be in this location. The Lower Thames Crossing is too little too late, it will be close to capacity by the time it opens. The budget seems to be wasteful and expensive for an infrastructure project that will not achieve sufficient traffic headroom and could become over capacity within in a relatively short period. Highways England has chosen a construction site that is the worst of several options. The original option B was probably the best option but that was cancelled for a theme park that has now been cancelled. The consultation period has been long and drawn out whilst any normal member of the public who took has been expected to understand engineering jargon to a higher level. The Jargon has put many objectors off, which was probably the point. Environmentally it is of poor quality during and after completion, the local area will be impacted and the relative health of the area will be damaged. The level of 'Green washing' Highways England has used is just biased manipulation of the green issues. This project needs to be sent back to the drawing board."

Samantha List
"In response to your latest letter regarding the local refinement consultation I would like it noted that I strongly oppose the proposed Lower Thames Crossing as it is a total unnecessary project. In a time when we seek to reduce pollution I wonder why you wish to construct another road. Instead we should be aiming for improved public transport links not more roads. Alongside your desire to pollute is your aim to kill much wildlife, Flora and fauna. Again in this enlightened age I question your need to destroy what we now know is so beneficial for the planet. Think of your own children - do you wish to leave them a posion planet? My concerns are numerous in this negative impact project: It will not solve the Dartford Crossing issues and you should be more intelligent and start considering sustainable alternatives. The Dartford Crossing will remain busy until you offer clean options for transportation. National Highways needs a total revamp as policies and ideas seem antiquated and not compatible with a sustainable vision. Obviously National Highways have zero respect for human beings who reside near this ridiculous idea and our British wildlife. Accept this project is outdated and try to create something innovative instead. This project will destroy greenbelt, ancient and vital woodland, agricultural lands, homes, communities, businesses and more. Why do you seek to do this? The increase in carbon emissions seems to conflict with Newly proposed legal air pollution. Levels (PM2.5) and this is just criminal to continue to disregard this initiative. Why waste £8.2bn of taxpayers money when we have numerous more needy causes? Please Be more creative and design a non polluting train or tram link across the river?"

Sharron Peel
"Would not solve the problems suffered due to the Dartford Crossing Induced demand – increase in cross river traffic (around 50%) Lack of adequate connections, especially when there are incidents Increase in carbon emissions (around 6.6 million tonnes) Waste of over £10bn+, not value for money, false economy as other spending would be needed as direct result Loss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland threatening food security Destroy and impact woodland (inc ancient woodland), trees (inc ancient/veteran), hedgerows, greenbelt Devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected species Increase in air and noise pollution, whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5 No provision for cross river active travel, not viable for public transport due to lack of adequate connections Destruction and impacts to homes and communities Concerns about construction impacts Doesn’t meet scheme objectives"

Simon Walther
"A great idea and please get on with it. One strong factor will be to divert freight from the Dartford crossing - may I suggest ensure that the cost of crossing for freight at Dartford is always higher (including fuel cost) than the tunnel - the freight will be purely cost driven."

Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group of the LGA
"Effect on aviation passenger market in Kent and Essex and flows/catchment changes between airports (Southend, Manston, Stansted, London Gatwick, London City). Effect on air cargo flows in same east of London area and implications for existing and new air cargo capacity at London and South East Airports and demand leaking to near European airports via the Channel ports. Overall impact on London Airport system and the rational and environmentally efficient use of capacity at said airports. Roll of Woolwich Ferry."

Susan Harvey
"The Lower Thames crossing is in the wrong position and if it is actually necessary should be moved further east following the A128. The proposed route is throught part of the London Borough of Havering which the Mayor of London wishes to include in the extended London ULEZ. The omissions from the proposed LTC will be far greater than omissions from traffic within Havering making a mockery of ULEZ. Surely a new motorway should not be going through a London Borough alongside the current M25 vastly increasing pollution levels to a very dangerous level."

Swanley Town Council
"Traffic Flow Interests Environmental Impact The Impact on Swanley Town"

Thompson Welding & Construction
"Using a certain % of Local companies on the project instead of just the big Laing O'Rourkes, Costains etc. How opportunities reach local companies What hoops local companies have to jump through to be considered (construction online gold etc) Contacts provided to local companies to talk about opportunities with the the main contractors for each stage."

UK Regional and Business Airports (RABA) Group (UK Regional and Business Airports (RABA) Group)
"The UK Regional and Business Airports (RABA) Group represents 41 UK airports with scheduled passenger throughputs of less than 3 mppa…. covers all parts of the UK including 16 in the Devolved Nations, 4 in the Crown Dependencies. Some do not host scheduled air services and fulfill General, Business and Special Mission Aviation functions. Some are ‘remote’ or ‘peripheral’, whilst other are relievers/functional specialists within the orbit of larger airports We will be interested to consider the impacts on use of smaller, regional and Business and General Aviation airports in Kent and Essex."

Alison Craig
"The area along the Thames now has a surfeit of retail and leisure opportunities. We need to save space for nature, and was proved during lockdown, green space and access to such areas is vital to everyone physical and mental health in an ever increasing populated city. Please don't ruin this area."

Brian Pearson
"1. My views on the whole process from idea to submission of the final plan; 2. Why my views tend to differ from that of my friend and local MP, and why. 3. To reinforce the urgent and critical need for the realization of the plan."

Catherine Sisterson
"I’m opposed to the LTC on environmental grounds, both damage to wildlife habitat and it’s detrimental effect on the move to net zero. Building more roads has been proven to increase traffic and so it will not achieve its aims."

Chris Hossack
"My submissions would be centred around the economic benefits, the reduction in congestion and emissions, the offsetting proposals to minimise environmental damage"

Derek Maslin
"Concerns on projected costs, timescales and precise location"

Dr D J van Rest
"Insufficient consideration has been given to the consequence of generated traffic on the M25, especially on the pinch point of Bell Common tunnels which would be expensive and difficult to widen. Neither has the possibilities of congestion charging on the Dartford Crossing to spread the peak loads and increase capacity been examined, which could allow the scheme to be delayed to a financially more healthy time. This project is contrary to the five elements Government Policy in that it encourages long distant commuting, generates extra traffic, promotes alternative activities to healthy local ones, reduces green and recreational space. The extra traffic will be a special burden for the M25, particularly the Bell Common tunnels, which would be difficult and expensive to widen. Lack of capacity on the Dartford Crossing is disproved by the practice of not collecting tolls at night. No attempt has been made to spread peak loading by congestion charges, even though the required number plate recognition cameras are in place. The current shortage of skilled workers for urgent construction projects, would be worsened by prioritizing this scheme."

Farrukh Naeem Khan-Sherwani
"The video shows a complete absence of any service provisions to allow for the supply of fuel/adequate break areas for drivers, off site parking and lorry parking facilities along the proposed TLC and the consequences of any emergency that may affect not only those using the Dartford Crossing but also the LTC and others using the A2 to/from London and Canterbury/Dover. What proposals are in place for the replacement of existing service station located on the A2 immediately before the Gravesend (East) slip road and if that service station is demolished first, what service provisions will be in place during the construction of LTC. As it stands the proposal makes no proposals for any alternative service provisions along the A2 Gillingham to SE London. There is a most severe shortage of secure lorry parking and services. Please let me have your response."

Hutchison Ports
"Hutchison Ports operates 50 ports in 25 countries. In the UK it owns and operates the Port of Felixstowe, Harwich International and London Thamesport. London Thamesport is an important short sea container and project cargo port located on the Isle of Grain in Kent, close to the Crossing’s southern arm. The majority of traffic using London Thamesport is destined for locations to the north of the River Thames and currently has to use the Dartford crossing. Frequent congestion at the crossing, and on the M25 either side of it, adds time and cost to supply chains that use the international gateways that lie to the south of the river, including London Thamesport. The Lower Thames Crossing will double road capacity across the River Thames east of London, and will help ease this congestion. It will improve journey times to and from London Thamesport, right across the region, extending the hinterland around the port and opening up new growth markets. Beyond the immediate region, the new connection will provide a quicker, more reliable connection between the major manufacturing centres and distribution hubs in the Midlands and the North and international gateways in the South. By reducing distribution costs for exporters it will create new opportunities for businesses from across the UK to collaborate, compete and reach new customers."

John Prescott
"The development of the Lower Thames Crossing is essential now to ease congestion and shorten vital journey times between East Anglia in the north and Kent, Sussex and the Channel ports and Channel Tunnel. Even if LTC is built in the shortest possible time frame, the existing single road link – Dartford Crossing – will be impossibly congested 20 hours a day, thus negatively affecting livelihoods of drivers and other users, the UK economy, and UK productivity. LTC should be given the fastest possible approval so that work can begin immediately on this vital national infrastructure."

Marie Flynn
"I would like to follow the updates of the crossing I have followed this for years and look forward to it opening."

Maurice Leigh
"More countryside is being dug up and more animals being killed because their habitat is being destroyed, all in the name of progress. The Dartford Crossing was supposed to end all problems and that is now full. How long before this road becomes congested and another one needed. After all Dartford was said to end all problems. The human race does not have the monopoly on land."

Michael Harris
"1) Damage to the green environment in east Tilbury and clean air 2) Increase in traffic in local and surrounding areas 3) Will this new crossing really help the traffic on the dartford crossing for those not crossing from the A2/M2 ?"

Michael Stanway
"I am interested on how on earth you can carry out a zero carbon construction of a major project of this size."

Mr Graham Grice
"I believe that the new crossing is in the wrong place and will only lead to further congestion, pollution and accidents. Moreover, I am confident in saying that the location has been chosen to make large swathes of agricultural land uneconomic for farming, thus releasing therm for even more building, exasabating the congestion and pollution problems even further. This solution is short sighted and will reach capacity in very short order! The new crossing should have been built much further down stream, crossing the Thames and Medway utilising. a combination of tunnels and bridges. Such a scheme would allow easy connection to the M2 and M20 at Sittingbourne and Maidstone respectively. Heading North the M6 should be extended to cover the route of the A14 before eventually crossing what is currently agricultural land East of Southend. This scheme would provide a much more decisive choice of routes and will not be used as a short commuting route. Such a scheme would lower congestion and pollution."

Mr Shaun Barrell
"1. Traffic pollution, noise and light pollution when complete. 2. The destruction of millions of cubic meters of land and with it, the environment it sustains. 3. The disruption to the people of Thurrock in it's construction ie noise, road closure, machinery being brought into the borough and yet more lorries coming into Thurrock with aggregate."

Mrs Gill Stembridge
"I am very pleased that the Lower Thames Crossing has received Planning Permission. The recent increase in Traffic in the lanes of Kent makes it imperative that the Trunk roads are able to cope with the traffic increases. The Lower Thames Crossing is a very important part of the traffic plans for Kent."

Mrs Veronica Washington
"The main points of my objection are: 1. The degradation of air quality, estimated 6.6million tonnes of carbon emissions 2. Biodiversity and woodland targets for the surrounding areas of East Tilbury Village 3. Value for money issues in terms of the poor state and age of the existing Dartford tunnels and their upgrading/replacement which also must be a significant consideration with limited funds being available for infrastructure projects."

Peel Ports Ltd
"As the Port Authority closest to the Southern side of the project, we are very keen to make sure the Port of Sheerness is represented to support all aspects of the Lower Thames Crossing and the local supply chain. Peel Ports have already offered a letter of support for the project and will continue to offer guidance and assistance."

Road Haulage Association (RHA) Ltd (Road Haulage Association (RHA) Ltd)
"We support the Lower Thames Crossing project as a vital piece of infrastructure for road resilience and contingency planning when other routes are unable to be used. We believe it will have economical benefits to the Eastern and South Eastern regions. Our industry relies on having roads which allow vehicles to complete journeys which have consistent, reliable and predictable journey times. We believe the Lower Thames Crossing project will help to achieve this aim in this area. One particular issue that we would like to see improved/solved within the project is the inclusion of commercial vehicle driver facilities. Facilities are vital for the commercial vehicle drivers on our roads and we believe this should be considered within the scope of this application."

Robert Oliver
"As a resident of Thurrock I object to this development on the grounds that it will lead to more traffic through my borough and thereby a degradation in air quality."

Steven Troy
"I think that option C would be a waste of money and would only elevate the traffic congestion at the Dartford crossing by 14% and that is because most of the traffic (86%)travels around London so I think that the crossing should be tunnels under the existing crossing from between junction 29 and 30 to between 2 and 3 of the M25 or build another bridge for the northbound traffic"

Stantec on behalf of Thames Enterprise Park Limited
"Please see attached."

Upminster & Cranham Residents' Association
"We represent the residents of Upminster and Cranham. Our representation will highlight the potential downside effects for our residents of the new roads linking to the Lower Thames Crossing both in the construction phase and once its's operational. Where appropriate, we will suggest proposals that would help to mitigate these downside effects. Local Traffic Impact Residential roads suffer displaced motorway traffic. We seek funded mitigations including: 1. Weight restrictions in Front Lane. 2. New Pedestrian Crossing in Front Lane (near to Isis Drive), and upgrade to the crossing in St. Mary’s Lane (Jobbers Rest) supporting safer access to schools. Roads, Rights of Way and New Routes Roads, footpaths and a bridleway are impacted during construction with a detrimental impact on residents and businesses. The Ockendon Road closure period is too long. We seek: 1. A significant reduction in road closure timescales. 2. Clarity over routes affected, timelines and alternatives proposed. 3. Ongoing dialogue throughout the design process to ensure optimal routing, visual impact, layout and connectivity, utilising local knowledge. Air Quality and Health Impacts The Mayor of London is extending the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) but increased NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 from the LTC negates any ULEZ benefits. Air quality assessment data is challenged. We seek: 1. Greater clarity over the quality and veracity of the data used. 2. A full and updated assessment of likely impacts on resident health in the vicinity of the new road. 3. Identification of specific mitigations. Green Belt Loss, Wildlife and Habitats Green Belt land currently supports a range of protected and notable species and wildlife. We are in principle against the loss of Green Belt to road building. We seek: 1. Information on affected species and relocation plans and, where practical, community engagement and involvement. 2. Assurance regarding maintenance to ensure that new planting attains maturity. Planting should generally have local provenance. 3. An assessment of wildlife corridors and how these will be maintained or re-created. Construction Compounds and Traffic The proposed North Ockendon compound siting located within a conservation area is inappropriate. Councillors will be a first point of contact for some residents during construction activity, including overnight. We seek: 1. Reconsideration of the compound location. 2. Assurances regarding measures to control noise and light pollution for residents, with transparent noise monitoring, recording and reporting. 3. Timely updates on new activities likely to cause disturbance. 4. 24hr lines of communication maintained, with transparent recording and reporting. Climate Change Risk Assessment Havering has experienced significant and damaging impacts during extreme weather including flooding and fire. We seek: 1. A full assessment of extreme weather risks, identifying relevant mitigations to protect properties in areas near the new road. Loss of Ancient and Other Woodland There is a loss of ancient woodland from Havering with a ‘compensatory’ new woodland to be planted outside of Havering's boundaries, but this does not represent compensation for the loss to Havering’s residents. We seek: 1. Further identification of land within Havering, preferably the east of Havering, for acquisition and planting for outdoor recreation. 2. A fund established for tree planting and environmental improvements on streets and public spaces in Havering. New Road Open There will be additional noise from increased traffic. We seek a commitment that: 1. National Highways will undertake post completion noise monitoring and, in consultation with residents, will determine the needs for and implement additional noise reduction infrastructure."

William Jones
"I am concerned that a massive infrastructure and tunneling project like this Lower Thames Crossing does not include a rail tunnel. Linking the rail networks of the east of England with the south east would be enormously financially and socially beneficial to a vast area. Offering a passenger link between the east Anglia region with the Medway towns and greater Kent would open business and commuting possibilities that the current rail and road systems cannot efficiently offer. Rail freight would also benefit significantly since any rail freight from the Midlands and North of England must travel via the west of London. A fully-instituted rail connection would obviously necessitate significant investment for passenger interchanges with C2C, Greater Anglia, East Midland, Southern Region etc but this is a project for decades to come. More passenger opportunities, freigh off the roads, less congestion from reduced HGV traffic."

Absolute Action Ltd
"will be in relation to :- degree of potential disruption to existing road traffic movement in N Kent whether new roads & tunnels being planned are of sufficient capacity for future usage how long the disruption is likely to last what steps will be taken to mitigate disruption whether impact on road usage between Gravesend & London will also be reviewed whether and what impact there may be on the wildlife of our important N Kent Marshes"

Andrew Thompson
"In the first instance, I am in favour of the project for a lower Thames crossing point. My main objection and fear, is that the project will run over time and over budget. I sincerely trust that the chosen project team and construction contractors are chosen wisely and for this I highlight the Sadlers Farm roundabout project that is still undergoing remediation works. As an Essex resident of over 50 years and a professional person, our 'dear' A127 is in desperate need of upgrading. Good scheme and worthwhile but please project manage to a high degree."

Ashley Roger Hambridge
"I am an interested party because I live near the Dartford Tunnels and their various approach roads and am heartily fed up with the chaos caused to the surrounding area when there is a problem at the Tunnels This is now so frequent that it is virtually daily!"

Brian Lishak
"This project is essential for the future and I wish to participate in its development. I am an affected person and an interested party."

Colin Randall
"In my humble opinion I think that the proposed project is to close to the QE2 bridge and will create more problems than it will solve"

ABDS Ltd on behalf of Cranham Golf Course Ltd
"It is accepted that Annex B of document 4.1 (Statement of Reasons) includes Cranham Golf Course Ltd (No 210) and Cranham Solar Ltd (No 211) and that the document schedules negotiations that have taken place with National Highways (NH). Negotiations were considered necessary by NH due in part to Compulsory Acquisition in order to facilitate replacement land for Thames Chase Community Forest. Representations contend that negotiations with the landowner have been inadequate and no meaningful evidence supplied as to why land currently occupied by Cranham Solar Ltd is the only site appropriate for the identified replacement land. For completeness land associated with Cranham Solar Ltd is owned by Cranham Golf Course but the golf course has no current financial interest in the solar generating business. This situation would change in the future however were the compulsory acquisition not to conclude. The lease with Cranham Solar Ltd is a 25 year lease but planning permission exists for the solar park to generate over a 40 year period. On expiration of the lease with Cranham Solar Ltd the ownership of solar generating equipment would revert to Cranham Golf Course who would have the ability to draw income from electric generation on site for an additional 15 years terminating on 16th December 2056 (Planning Permission P.1569.22 refers). It is contended that the importance of the site as a business in its own right, and perhaps more importantly an important renewable energy generating facility with a current future lifespan of 33 years has been completely overlooked when assessing land which may be considered suitable as replacement land for Thames Chase Community Forest. The landowner also seeks to make representations on the Environmental Statement Appendices and Appendix 8.17 - Draft EPS mitigation licence application - great crested newts. Again these representations are solely in respect to how NH justify Cranham Solar as the only suitable replacement land for Thames Chase Community Forest. NH dismiss Cranham Golf Course as a possible location for replacement land partly on the basis of "Surveys showed that this site already contains areas of suitable terrestrial habitat for Great Crested Newts (such as rough grass and scrub) and the golf course is well-linked to Thames Chase and lies within the buffer zone associated with the newt ponds to be impacted." Similar land features exist on the solar park located adjacent the golf course and it is therefore contended that this land could provide suitable habitat within 500m of recorded GCN. Additionally the landowner is not party to any evidence that pond features within the golf course have been tested for the presence of GCN which could change the buffer zone associated. Annex B (Schedule of Negotiations) records that the last correspondence between Cranham Golf Course and NH in respect of surveys was on 28/6/2019 with, to the landowner's knowledge, only 1 survey visit made. In summary whilst not having an objection to the principal of the infrastructure project itself Cranham Golf Course wish to make representations relating to the adequacy of negotiations and more importantly the robustness of the site selection process employed by NH for the Thames Chase Community Forest replacement land. The only evidence supplied to the landowner is recorded in document 4.1 Annex B on 23/9/2022 when the Thames Chase Forest Centre - 'Survey Results and Reasonable Alternatives' document was issued. Section 3 of the document is the only evidence the landowner has seen that documents the land selection criteria employed by NH - the findings of which have been challenged directly."

John Green
"The LTC is not fit for purpose. The pollution in this area is way too high. The junction where the LTC joins the M25 is to close to the junction of the A127 also very close to junction of the A12 which on many occasions is like a car park. The LTC is too close to the M25 which will cause more traffic going onto it to cause more queues & hold ups."

Leslie Newell
"This is a vital development which will obviously have upsides and downsides. It seems that environmental issues are being taken into account but there will of course, be some things that upset people. I believe that to cancel the scheme would have even worse impacts on the environment, the economy and public health. The other issue for me is how long this will take to complete and how much it will go over budget. It is "pie in the sky" to believe that this project will come in on budget because no Government projects ever do."

Melburg
"Melburg have various land holdings within the area and are interested to see how these may be impacted by the ongoing proposals"

Michael Marlow
"Insufficient attention has been made to the environmental issues concerning this development"

Smart Planning Ltd on behalf of Mr David Barron
"My client is principally concerned about the impact on their residential amenity of noise emanating from the development and the impact that the development will have on the value of their property."

Mr Ian Black
"My principal objections to this project are the 1. the impact on the local community and the environment 2. the amount of greenbelt being taken 3. the Tilbury Viaduct section which has not been shown for what this structure would create in real terms of noise pollution along with air pollution and the amount of general litter being deposited in the area and along the entire length of the proposed route 4. the real cost of this project and the construction time are not achievable and makes it more expensive than previous routes put to the Minister in charge at the time. 5. the ability to control breakdowns quickly and the traffic jams that will occur in the surrounding areas."

Owen Berkeley-Hill
"I am concerned that there is no provision to link the crossing to the M20. I have said this in previous submissions. Only providing more crossing capacity is not enough if the traffic then pours onto the M2 going to the coast. The M2 only has two lanes and roundabouts at its Eastern end. traffic for the Continent will try to use the A249 (Detling Hill) to get to the M20. This is steep in places and will be a dangerous route. I am also concerned with an article published by the Times recently which described just how unfit for purpose our planning process is. It used as an example the Lower Thames Crossing and the documentation required which was more than 600,000 pages! I'm [Redacted] and would like to see the project completed in my lifetime!"

Carole Anne Watling
"My concerns are that: . The road will destroy a lot of natural habitat . This area was abused in the past by industry but over the last 50 years has been rehabilitated and I fear the new road will once again undo all the hard work of volunteers and local councils. . The noise levels around the new road especially where it joins the M25 will increase to an unbearable level. . I am also concerned about air quality. . Some road users have no respect for the countryside they drive through, you only have to look at the verges alongside our roads at the litter and fly-tipping. I would like to know what the planners are going to do to mitigate this problem. .What guarantees do residents have that the construction companies will respect our right to have a quiet and peaceful environment while they are building the road? . Why do the owners of the new road not think that local residents deserve compensation for the disruption caused. We at least should have some sort of support with payments to go through the new tunnel when it is completed. I am afraid this new road will only increase traffic on the M25, it will lead to the degradation of the countryside and the environment in which I live."

Colin Cooper
"As a regular user of the current Thames crossing at Dartford I am interested in how the LTC can be of benefit to me. I am also interested in improved flow of Heavy Goods vehicles across the river."

David Baker
"The Dartford crosssing will still remain over capacity.The Lower Thames crossing will cause pollution have huge impacts on the environment thousands of acres ancient woodland, green belt and prime agricultural land Will be lost which is unacceptable especially in a climate emergency.The impact on wildlife will be devetating many rare species and birds have recently returned to ashenbank, claylane and shorne ancient woodland and any Lower Thames crossing activity will be unacceptable. The estimated construction costs of LTC are atleast two years out of date in my opinion the figures given will double which is a waste of tax payers money.The M25 should be completed and cheaper options considered.The LTC comes close to school sports fields recreational areas and highly populated areas The A2 will be reduced to just 2 Lanes creating a bottle neck the surrounding road networks will not be able to cope with the extra traffic. The lower Thames crossing will not solve it's original objectives,in my opinion it's more about gaining access to thousands of acres of ancient woodland green belt for future development which is extremely worrying once its gone it's gone."

Mark Easter
"The crossing is absolutely essential to relieve QE bridge and Blackwall tunnel to ease Kent being a giant car park that spoils an otherwise beautiful county."

MD Elliott
"I did not buy near a main road due to health issues. You now plan to put 8lanes of traffic right outside my home. Health will now suffer. Would not solve the problems suffered due to the Dartford CrossingInduced demand – increase in cross river traffic (around 50%)Lack of adequate connections, especially when there are incidentsIncrease in carbon emissions (around 6.6 million tonnes)Waste of over £10bn+, not value for money, false economy as other spending would be needed as direct resultLoss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland threatening food securityDestroy and impact woodland (inc ancient woodland), trees (inc ancient/veteran), hedgerows, greenbeltDevastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected speciesIncrease in air and noise pollution, whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5No provision for cross river active travel, not viable for public transport due to lack of adequate connectionsDestruction and impacts to homes and communitiesConcerns about construction impactsDoesn’t meet scheme objectivesAnd/or anything else that you have concerns about!"

Michael Doyle
"Wish to be kept informed on the traffic impact on the roads I use on a daily basis. A13, A127"

Mr Michael Durrant
"The crossing benefits the residents of Kent The surrounding infrastructure is considered within project and potential upgrades are reviewed in light of increased or different traffic flow."

Philip Healy
"My area of concern is the impact the proposed crossing will have on the increase in volume of traffic that we will experience in the Swale area, IE north & south of the M2 / A249 junction. Traffic volumes at this particular time in negotiating the A249 / M2 junction and then the A249 / M20 junction are horrendous at specific peak times. Admittedly the improvement that is under construction at the A249 / M20 junction due for completion late 2024 will have some lessening of the traffic build up for those choosing to travel in the direction of the Medway towns and in the direction of London but towards the Coast M2 / A2 / A299 will be a different matter with the expected increase in traffic volumes expected from the Lower Thames Crossing. The huge increase in house building in the Swale Area have brought with it huge increases in traffic volumes which hadn't been envisaged by our planners . I'm a cynic and like may others similarly affected i tend to believe the planners totally ignored the ramifications these developments would have on the local infrastructure,as we are finding to our cost, as we go about our daily lives trying to move around the area, the planning applications were adopted despite the huge amount of objections to these developments from the general public. That's my concern regarding the Lower Thames Crossing, but obviously i'm realistic enough to realize that the Dartford crossing has reached capacity and an alternative needs to be sought, my frustration is why it takes so long to implement the plan and get building it!"

Raymond Krystofiak
"My concern is the loss of green land being replaced with concrete. Too much emphasis on roads at a time when we are trying to discourage the use of vehicles."

Valerie Baker
"The Lower Thames Crossing will not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing. The Dartford Crossing will still be over capacity. The Lower Thames Crossing will have a devastating affect on the environment coming close to school sports fields, recreational areas and highly populated areas. The Lower Thames Crossing will have huge impacts on ancient woodlands, prime agricultural land and the green belt, which is totally unacceptable in a climate emergency. Firstly, the M25 should be completed and all other cheaper options considered. The current cost estimates of the Lower Thames Crossing are at least two years out of date. These figures will at least double. Which in my opinion is a complete waste of tax payers money."

Carol Rintoul
"The Lower Thames Crossing should not be built It is too expensive will create too much CO2 increase pollution in an area that is already over the limit will disrupt the whole area will cause traffic to migrate across Thurrock when there is a problem at the Dartford crossing or the Lower Thames Crossing if there is an incident at either one will destroy ancient woodland & natural habitats & wildlife The junction at the M25/A13/ LTC is terrible, vehicles have to migrate to the A13 in order to change direction if they have gone wrong. It will have a detrimental effect on historical local sites It needs to be built further out of London It will release arable land which we need to grow food, for houses & logistic parks!"

Havering Cyclists
"We object to the project on the grounds that it will cause an increase in motor traffic and pollution both generally and on local roads feeding the new crossing and make it more difficult for the UK to meet its carbon reduction targets. We believe that the funding should be spent instead on a much-needed public transport crossing such as the KenEx tram link. Should the project go ahead we would ask: 1) That the new crossing does not cause severance or obstruct any routes or paths used by walkers and cyclists. 2) That facilities are made available for walkers and cyclists to use the new crossing. 2) That measures are taken to block noise and air pollution from adjoining areas by planting hedges and trees along its route. 3) That the construction process keeps HGV movements on local roads to an absolute minimum. 4) That any HGVs that do use local roads have at least a three star Direct Vision rating."

John Goff
"Possible extra high traffic volumes in my area causing more congestion"

Warren Rainforth
"My interest is an an occasional traveller using the Dartford Crossing and wish to continue a close interest in developments, and have the opportunity to contribute as appropriate."

Gary Fitzgerald
"500 words is woefully insufficient to cover in any detail my submissions opposing this project. However, I will be submitting detailed objections covering the Ecological, Environmental, Economic and Financial reasons in support of why this proposed roadbuilding venture cannot be allowed to proceed. I will also be highlighting the complete lack of Project Viability/Business Case and National Highways campaign of Mis-Information and Greenwashing associated with the proposed LTC. If you do need any further detail or specifics at this stage then please contact me well ahead of the Registration closure date."

Karen Fitzgerald
"I will be opposing this proposed roadbuilding project on Ecological, Environmental, Economic and Financial grounds. I will also be challenging the actual Cost and associated lack of Project Viability and Business Case in proceeding any further with this venture. I will also be raising concerns and submitting fact checking and FOI requests over the continuous campaign of Mis-Information and Greenwashing conducted by National Highways in relation to proposed LTC."

Tony Rice
"I am currently the borough ward councillor for Cobham and Luddesdown and helped to represent my community during the lengthy LTC consultation process. However I am also a resident of Cobham on the main route through the village, on the doorstep of the LTC and I am applying in that capacity. Cobham is in a conservation area and is constrained by single file section in the medieval centre of the village. These roads, and the surrounding rural roads at Sole Street and Luddesdown are often single track and unsuitable for large vehicles and heavy traffic. During the LTC consultations, I have engaged heavily with the applicant, who has consistently been unable to answer how it will prevent these roads and villages from being overrun by traffic accessing, or exiting the LTC, particularly when severe traffic events occur, causing traffic to navigate towards unsuitable diversion routes. The traffic modelling has not reflected the local nuances, because it has concentrated on the bigger picture, main roads and intersections. As a local borough councillor, I have had the opportunity to study its traffic modelling in detail, which reveals Green Lane and Sole Street nearby to my property, as a route forecast to suffer significant growth in traffic due to the LTC, up to 95% capacity in the PM peak. The junction at Green Lane and the A227 is already a significant congestion hot spot. Neither has it been taken into account how these villages will cope with diversions off of the A227 and A228 corridors when there are problems on the M25, or at the Dartford Crossing, causing a massive traffic increase towards the LTC. I have also engaged with KCC who's own modelling forecasts a disbenefit to Henhurst Road and Sole Street. If the narrow roads and hot spot minor junctions in this area are not subject to examination and scrutiny in more detail, then significant community and village damage could occur. Cobham and the villages immediately south of the LTC are at high risk if these issues are not understood and mitigation is not embedded into the plans. I fear the consequences of high traffic volumes going past my house and those of the community around me. Thank you for considering my application."

Virginia Kirkham
"I am very concerned about Climate Change and the amount of Carbon this infrastructure scheme will generate during construction and ongoing. I am also very concerned about the cost of the scheme and the value for money."

Essex Badger Protection Group
"Badgers live in close knit communities, often referred to as "clans", with each clan having it's own territory and setts which are often defended against incursions by members of others clans. In our view, the proposals carry the following serious risks which need to be addressed: - Habitat and territory fragmentation; - A reduction in the ability for clans to mix during the mating season - leading to an increased risk of 'in breeding' and a weakening of genetic stock; - An increase in traffic flows on smaller surrounding roads, leading to an increase in road traffic collisions involving badgers; - An increase in air pollution, affecting both badgers and prey species; - Night working during the construction phase and the likely impacts on all nocturnal species; - Light pollution and the impacts on prey species as well as badgers themselves; and - The project, and the proposed ecological mitigation, is being assessed on out of date survey data and is therefore in breach of Natural England and CIEEM guidance for development related surveys."

Mr Chris Jones
"I wish as an individual resident of Dartford show my whole hearted support for this scheme, an opinion I think is little or never voiced. It's a vital piece of infrastructure for the region and needs to be pushed ahead with all available speed."

Russell Plumb
"As a local resident, I have views on the planned development, process and benefits proposed from this solution. It is clear that the costs of the project has increased significantly and that the solution does not, but your own data, actually solve the issue of the Dartford Crossing being over capacity, by a significant amount. There are environmental / health considerations also, with the Thurrock borough already being considered to have poor air quality, there can be no doubts that this development (during both construction and it's ongoing use) will worsen this, which contradicts the air quality commitments that the UK Government has publicly made. Further, the development will cause widespread traffic chaos and congestion in an area which has been subject to recent A13 developments; which has a significant impact on our ability to live."

Thurrock Power Limited
"Thurrock Power Limited (“TPL”) has the benefit of a development consent order for a flexible generation plant, granted in February 2022 (“TPL DCO”). The TPL DCO consents a combination of reciprocating gas engine electricity generation and battery storage (with associated development) primarily on land to the north of the existing National Grid Tilbury substation. The Order Limits of that granted DCO and the LTC proposal overlap and there are a number of interfaces between the consented TPL DCO and the proposed Lower Thames Crossing (“LTC”) scheme including (without limitation): 1) TPL’s consented high pressure gas pipeline to connect the proposed reciprocating engines to the national gas transmission. The proposed gas pipeline route traverses the LTC scheme and could be constructed before, concurrently or after the construction of the LTC scheme. The LTC application proposes a diversion of TPL’s consented gas pipeline route; 2) TPL’s consented Station Road access, water pipe and other service routes interface with the proposed LTC scheme; 3) LTC’s proposed access and conveyor routes intersect the TPL DCO boundary; and 4) traffic management co-operation will need to be considered in the event the TPL DCO and LTC schemes are constructed concurrently. The parties are also in discussion as to how any powers each has or may have would be exercised to ensure alignment and prevent, for example, a clash in the use of compulsory powers or powers of temporary possession. Further discussion is also required as to how the interfaces can be managed to ensure that TPL can comply with the requirements of its DCO. TPL is supportive of the LTC scheme and has no in principle objections but submits this representation and wishes to have interested party status in the examination in order to ensure adequate provision for the above-mentioned interfaces (and any others that may become apparent) is made."

Lance Paul
"As I live local I would like this project to go ahead as I know it would relieve heavy traffic on to and off the A2, M2, Dartford Crossing and surrounding roads through Gravesend."

Tessa Barnby
"This scheme will not solve the problems suffered due to the Dartford Crossing. Scheme does not take into account other possible developments in the local area, ie theme park proposal on the Northfleet side of gravesend, which will impact on traffic and pollution in the gravesend area. Induced demand – increase in cross river traffic (around 50%) Lack of adequate connections, especially when there are incidents Increase in carbon emissions (around 6.6 million tonnes) Waste of over £10bn+, not value for money, false economy as other spending would be needed as direct result Loss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland threatening food security Destroy and impact woodland (inc ancient woodland), trees (inc ancient/veteran), hedgerows, greenbelt. Impact on ancient woodlands by construction traffic during building phase. Ecosystems that have taken hundreds of years to develop will be destroyed Devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected species, no provision for ensuring insects including pollinators essential for food and organisms essential for soil health are protected Increase in air and noise pollution, whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5 No provision for cross river active travel, not viable for public transport due to lack of adequate connections Destruction and impacts to homes and communities Concerns about construction impacts Doesn’t meet scheme objectives"

Gill Gilmour
"I object to this proposed development on the basis that it will cause irretrievable and lasting environmental damage in an age where there is more and more awareness of the lasting effects that vehicular transportation causes and where is more effort to reduce traffic and source more environmentally friendly means of transport I am a local resident who will be directly impacted. I am concerned about the detrimental impact on our environment and quality of life and on the wildlife and habitats that will be destroyed forever if this hideous plan is implemented"

Lesley Goodwin
"My home in South Ockendon will look directly over the LTC road when it is built. Firstly, the tunnel is to close to the current Dartford Crossing to be a viable alternative it will just add to congestion in Thurrock which will basically be a car park. Option C will wind wildly through the little bit of Green Belt we have left, protected land, a countryside barrier around the city that is supposed to give city/urban dwellers a rural, fresher air, calm retreat, it will be gone forever. The NOISE POLLUTION will stop people from wanting to use any leisure areas/facilities as sounds of nature will drowned out by 24/7 constant groaning of heavy traffic. The AIR POLLUTION already clogs our lungs, thick dust lays over everything now, our gardens, cars and windows. The LIGHT POLLUTION already steals our night skies, blots the landscape, how can a major new motorway benefit the people of Thurrock? To save the planet we are told to use our cars less, more of us are working from home....why do we need more motorways with more lanes. Freight should be moved by rail not road. We need better Public Transport and if more motorways are needed they should be constructed underground in tunnels as they do in so many other countries and if that motorway emerged from a tunnel in Chipping Norton would the plans get the go ahead???"

Martin Bryant
"The project is too expensive, and is likely overrun and go over budget. The project will cause pollution and risk of ill health to those in the area. The project will not relieve traffic congestion, but cause more congestion"

Martin Carroll
"A new tunnel to the east of the existing bridge and tunnel would bring additional pollution to the east of Thurrock to an already high pollution area of south east Essex. Also this end of the borough has already experienced the prolonged effect of Highways England road improvement A13 widening scheme with delayed journey times and the various forms of pollution encountered during and after construction. The replanting of trees was a disaster with Healy any surviving the dry summer of 2022. The site remains an eyesore months after completion and dirt and debris continues to be deposited on the surrounding local roads. We do not want this project to be approved in Thurrock."

Michael Farman
"I am greatly concerned about the increase in traffic on the Manor way roundabout in Stanford le Hope with the building and operation of the Lower Thames Crossing. I live in the area and have expressed my concern before along with other residents but it seems to be ignored. Why?"

Peter Thomas
"I wish to continue to stress that much of the slow running on the existing Dartford Crossing is caused by too many junctions each of which tends to slow traffic as it exits or enters the motorway."

Barry Goodwin
"Pollution concerns. Noise, Air and light. Loss of wild habitat. Developing green areas? Who will go there as the air will be filled vehicle fumes and noise. When the LTC is constructed and in use it will mean that my town, South Ockendon will be surrounded on all four sides by motorways and major roads......LTC, M25, A13, A127.....we'll all end up living under flyovers as the road building is never ending and the real issues not being addressed. More of the population work from home. The Government are trying to get vehicles off the roads, we have a lack of Public Transport and fast efficient rail services for freight and the public. This intended LTC will cost approx 9million???? When every road is covered in pot holes! If this monstrosity goes ahead it will be the view from my living room window. It will steal my night sky, the bird song and clog my lungs......yes I'm an Interested Party!"

Jeanette Hogan
"Many reasons I object to this proposal. Far too many fumes will be placed in the air, especially around Stanford le hope where the road layout is atrocious!!!! All traffic going to London has to come down to our roundabout by the Manorway and then travel back. TRAFFIC WILL BE HORRENDOUS. THAT IS WITHOUT ANY ACCIDENTS TAKING PLACE. OUR TOWN IS ONE OF THE UKS WORST TOWNS FOR POLLUTION AND THIS WILL ADD TO IT!!!"

Miss Christine Ann Salter
"Thurrock already suffers from high pollution, this will only increase carbon emissions, noise & air pollution. Incidents / closures / traffic jams at the existing Dartford Crossing already cause severe gridlock throughout Thurrock. The scheme will not solve these problems & will only make them worse. The scheme will destroy farmland, woodland (including ancient woodland) & greenbelt - all at a time when we are becoming more aware of food security as well as the need to preserve the environment. The scheme will cost £10b - but will inevitably be much more as these things always greatly exceed budget - but will not solve the problems & will make Thurrock worse in every way imaginable. Thurrock is not - or should not be - a dumping ground!"

Pat Baker
"The lower Thames crossing is the most environmentally damaging most expensive route. Thousands of acres of ancient woodland prime agricultural land and green belt will put at risk with devastating results on wildlife. The Lower Thames crossing will not solve the problems at the Dartford crossing the Dartford crossing will remain over capacity. The Lower Thames crossing comes close to school playing fields recreational grounds highly populated areas and will pump thousands of tonnes of carbons into the atmosphere .No other options have been considered since 2016 without the M25 being completed the congestion at dartford can’t be solved.The Lower Thames crossing will create a bottle neck on the A2 by reducing it to just two lanes at cobham .In my opinion option C is the only way ancient woodland green belt prime agricultural land can be accessed for future development which is very concerning. The Lower Thames crossing is definitely the most expensive environmentally damaging the longest construction time , won’t be completed until at least 2037 and won’t solve its original objective. Once it’s gone it’s gone hopefully common sense will prevail."

Ranjit Pattar
"No clear objections at this stage, just want to understand more about what the plans look like."

Robert Lane
"• National Highways has failed to properly examine alternative options as required under the environmental impact assessment. They failed to give proper consideration to a simple 4-lane bridge at Dartford, thus freeing up the tunnels for non-motorway traffic. They failed to give proper consideration to Option A14 and its derivatives, a tunnel linking the M25 south of junction 2 to the M25 north of junction 30, bypassing the existing crossing, putting all motorway traffic underground, and finally completing the M25. • National Highways has failed to consult on alternative routes. National Highways failed to consult on any options at Dartford in their Route Consultation in 2016. They only consulted on options east of Gravesend. • National Highways manipulated the 2016 Route Consultation responses to give a false outcome. In 2017, they announced that the majority supported their proposals. This was only achieved by discounting over 13,000 consultees who opposed the crossing. They were condensed into just 10 “campaign” responses. In reality, over 25,000 consultees opposed the LTC against 19,770 who supported it. • LTC fails to address traffic volumes and incidents at Dartford Crossing. National Highways forecasts that Dartford Crossing will still operate over capacity after LTC opens. The northbound tunnels will remain undersized. Hazardous loads will still need escorting. Traffic weaving and frequent incidents will continue to occur. LTC does nothing to address these problems. • LTC fails to provide resilience. National Highways has failed to model traffic scenarios when incidents occur on the northbound approaches to the Dartford tunnels. There is insufficient capacity for traffic exiting the northbound M25 at junction 2, or exiting the A2 eastbound towards the LTC – just one lane is provided. • The project fails to provide sufficient capacity on the A2/M2 link. At Statutory Consultation, the A2 and the M2 were linked by 3 lanes in each direction through the LTC junction. This has since been reduced to 2 lanes in each direction. This will not be sufficient for peak-time traffic volumes between the A2 and M2. • The project fails to consider rat-running on the local road network. National Highways has consistently failed to consider the impact of changed and increased traffic on the local road network near the LTC, and the project fails to include any mitigation measures. • The project seeks to circumvent the 5-year moratorium on smart motorways introduced in January 2022. At Statutory Consultation, National Highways stated that the route would be a smart motorway with no hard shoulders. The description has been changed to an all-purpose trunk road with motorway restrictions. A change in name only, to circumvent the moratorium. • The cost and environmental impact is unacceptable. Since the route announcement in 2017, the cost has increased from £3.7 million to £8+ billion. Although the route is just 23 km long, the land take is 24.35 km2, equating to 9.3% of the combined area of Gravesham and Thurrock, with massive impact on the environment and Kent Downs AONB. This route would not have been chosen had the true costs and environmental impact been declared."

Alan Dolan
"my representation is my objection to the constant changes that affect the population of Thurrock residents' where you have changed roads that have an effect on the pollution being moved eastwards into the residential areas that will have an effect on the residents of Corringham Grays and most of the Thurrock areas wellbeing, due to the increase in traffic movements in the areas. Little consideration has been taken on this issue as it concerns the health of the residents"

Anne Robinson
"I strongly object to the Lower Thames Crossing, which should be scrapped, for the following reasons. 1. A proper full and recent assessment of the problem has not been made. It has been 14 years since strategic alternatives were assessed (DfT 2009), since when only road-based solutions have been considered. The current situation is so very different – climate and nature emergency, ongoing air pollution and increased car dependency leading to poor public health, the adoption of the natural capital approach and the requirement for a scheme to meet strategic and national objectives – from 2009 that the DfT should go back to the drawing board and assess the problems according to the WebTAG guidance, and in order to meet the requirements of the Treasury’s Green Book. 2. The scheme does not meet its objectives and is not the solution to the traffic and transport issues of the area - it does not address the problems of the Dartford Crossing. 3. It would induce more traffic, creating more air and noise pollution, and more climate emissions. Instead, traffic should be demand managed to reduce it, not only for climate reasons but also to improve the environment and people’s health and wellbeing. The demand management considered for the scheme is confined to a localised charging scheme – what is needed is a national road user charging scheme that would address all journeys on all roads. 4. The increase of 6.6Mt carbon emissions is particularly obscene. We are in a climate emergency and need to urgently reduce emissions. On those grounds alone this scheme should be rejected. 5. It would remove land from agricultural use - thousands of acres of farmland would be lost and important habitats such as woodland, ancient woodland and veteran trees, and hedgerows, would be destroyed or harmed leading to a devastating effect on wildlife. Land is a finite irreplaceable asset in the UK. It is both natural capital and strategic open space, which supports multiple ecosystem services - agriculture to produce food, access for recreation, wildlife habitats, resilience to climate change and reduction of flood risk, and sequestration of carbon. Such ecosystem services are critical to urban areas which have higher vulnerability to climate change due to their lack of habitats. New roads and their traffic reduce the permeability of the countryside for wildlife, further fragment habitats, increase injury and death for species trying to cross the roads and pollute air and water. 6. It would harm the openness of the Green Belt, encouraging sprawling development in isolated pockets of land. There are no very special circumstances to allow this harm to occur. 7. The scheme is a complete waste money and leads to lost opportunities - £10bn could be invested into reducing road freight and transferring it to rail or sea; and into reducing car journeys and switching them to public transport walking and cycling."

Christopher Wright
"I believe that 1. The method used to evaluate the scheme is flawed: time savings per se are not effective indicators of the real costs and benefits. 2. Over the longer term, the tunnel will generate more trips that will add to congestion costs in future years. They will be baked into the demand pattern and difficult to reverse. 3. The volume of concrete involved will significantly add to the national rate of carbon dioxide emissions at a time when most recognise the need to curb them. 4. The environmental costs are great: there will be unacceptable loss of wildlife habitat. 5. The nation could use the money poured into the scheme to much greater benefit elsewhere."

Hills Leslie
"I am the borough councillor for Chalk. As Such, I believe the development will be an unacceptable disruption for years to the residents I represent. I do not believe a tunnel will solve the problem at Dartford and i think an additional bridge at Dartford will be required before the LTC is finished I am also concerned about the noise from 'sub stations' and the development of a 'protection tunnel' near the residential areas of Chalk."

Margaret Haig
"This proposal will inflict so much damage to nearby rural villages and residents who chose to live in a rural community, not on the edge of a motorway and a commuter belt. The irreversible damage to designated SSSI, Ancient Woodlands, far too near houses, farmland and shrinking “protected” greenbelt areas and farmland , bird sanctuaries, natural wetlands and marshes which will need to be drained is beyond belief. The effect of the building of this proposed crossing will increase pollution caused by fumes, lights, noise, and detritus from tyres on the roadways, and rubbish chucked out of vehicles. Plus increased health issues caused by the fumes. Natural habitats for birds and animals will be destroyed as will ancient woodlands. Planting new trees takes many years before they will be able to absorb the fumes generated by the increased traffic. It is in the wrong place. Needs to be nearer Dover as commercial vehicles clog up the current motorways and rural roads when there is an accident. We need better railways and encourage commercial goods to be sent by rail.\This will reduce the accidents. Sort out the lane issues at the Dartford crossing and the motorway approaches to it."

PETER TREVOR FOSTER on behalf of Mr John Anthony White
"This representation refers to land known as Whittakers nursery Heath Road Orsett RM16 3AP registered at Land Registry EX944832 1. The requirement for the above land is to enable a diversion of existing overhead high voltage power lines to be installed below ground. A route for this diversion was previously shown on highways plans to fly over the terrace of properties immediately to the North and as a direct result of that at least 6 properties have been acquired by NH( more than 50) It would seem illogical to blight further land not previously affected by the proposal 2. The subject land was formerly a nursery and is considered suitable for housing of upto 25 units which in a local authority area failing to reach Government targets by a significant number is nonsense 3. If a suitable case can be made by NH for acquisition, then it is requested that this is achieved by purchase of only the smallest portion of the site to enable the proposal so that the very minimum of impact can be caused to the prospect on housing on the site"

Richard Pool
"The problem of Congestion New roads don’t decrease congestion: It is clear and obvious simply by observation that building new roads does not reduce road use, in fact it appears to increase it. The M25 should have reduced the load on both the North and South Circular roads. Both remain as busy as they ever were. The Dartford Crossing: QE2 bridge was built to solve the problem of congestion at the Dartford Tunnel (which was previously expanded from one to two tunnels to ease congestion). If this had been successful why do we have an ongoing congestion issue at the crossing? The M25 has become a major commuter route. Anecdotally we have heard stories and know of people who commute long distances using the M25 (Upminster to Luton, Dartford to Hemel Hempstead), adding to the argument that more roads equals more traffic. Any temporary congestion relief is likely to be eroded by induced traffic, as identified in the 1994 SACTRA report “Trunk roads and the Generation of Traffic”. More recent research confirms that the impact of induced traffic, with major road schemes showing traffic increases of up to 47 per cent over 20 years. Local Development How exactly will a relief road of the proposed nature support local sustainable development? The road does not provide any local connections, it’s not multi-modal in nature. It is simply not designed for local trips. The argument that major roads will contribute to wider economic growth is simply unproven. Research published since the previous consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing analysed 86 major road schemes from the past 20 years, using official data from the Post Opening Evaluation (POPE) reports this confirmed that the promised economic benefits from new roads have not been delivered. The environment The proposals will cause extensive and permanent environmental damage and fail to address wider sustainability imperatives. This damage will be increased with the change in the road plans from a four-lane to a six-lane motorway, with associated land taken for construction works. The end result will be irreversible damage to the natural environment. Coastal grazing marshes along with other major wildlife and nature areas will be subject to significant impact, all contrary to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats within Essex. The proposed road will surround the community of South Ockendon with multi-lane dual carriageways and motorways. No where in South Ockendon will be more than 1.5 miles from a major trunk road. Transport and Travel Changes in travel demand may not be consistent with the need for a new crossing. The recent pandemic has created a shift in working patterns that could substantially reduce the need for a new crossing. Transport is the largest emitting sector of the UK economy, accounting for 28% of UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2017. The UK Committee on Climate Change advises that policies to increase levels of walking, cycling and use of public transport need to be strengthened to deliver reductions in vehicle mileage of at least 5 per cent below the baseline trajectory, and that opportunities to reduce demand for travel must be exploited. How does building a new motorway meet these criteria? Concerns about how the building phase will affect local residents The proposed plan is to work continuously day and night for at least some part of the projected 6 year build period. That is 6 years of not insignificant disruption to the lives of local residents that undoubtedly have implications for both the physical and mental health of those near the construction. The proposed 18 month closure of the main road in and out of the north side of South Ockendon will also cause major problems for local residents and businesses."

PETER TREVOR FOSTER on behalf of The residents of Hollycrest, Mill Lane
"My clients property is severely affected by the scheme in that it is proposed to lay a high pressure gas main in very close proximity to the property and its outbuildings and likely to cause severe danger to health to residents and livestock, severe disruption to family life and enjoyment of the property and a severe loss in value. On going discussions have taken place with NH regarding a sale of the property in its entirety but no decision has been made and thus this is a protecting representation pending receiving a confirmation that the property will be purchased by NH"

PETER TREVOR FOSTER on behalf of The Residents of Mill House, Mill Lane
"My Clients property as stated above is severely affected by the scheme in the form of a new high pressure gas main passing across their property in close proximity to residential dwellings likely to give rise to danger to health, disruption to family and livestock, disruption to business and severe loss in value. Discussions with NH are ongoing but no firm conclusion has been reached on the invitation to purchase the affected properties and this is therefore a protected representation pending a NH decision"

David Walland
"I am within Orsett , the original plans and representation by HE stated that this project passes to the West of Orsett , this is grossly untrue , not only does it cut through Orsett it affects the middle of Orsett. “A LIE” by HE"

Essex Developers Group
"On behalf of the Essex Developers Group (EDG) we would like to convey our support to the Lower Thames Crossing which would not only relieve pressure on the Dartford Crossing but provide an added boost to job creation and housing in Essex. EDG focuses on helping to improve housing growth across the County, comprising developers, contractors, consultants, local housing companies, housing associations and the public sector. The group aims to eliminate barriers to house building and maximise commercial opportunities by getting the public and private sectors working together in a sustainable way that meets local needs. We believe the Lower Thames Crossing would improve resilience of the network by providing an alternative crossing that would almost double capacity across the Thames East of London. It would offer new, more reliable connections, better journeys, and fewer delays linking up communities between Kent and Essex. This would support economic recovery by boosting local, regional, and national economies, which is especially important right now. LRC will open new markets for local businesses including those in the construction sector, creating a new economy between Kent and Essex. We understand it could support 10,000 jobs in the peak year of construction and 22,000 jobs over the 6-year building phase. There would also be new opportunities for businesses to collaborate, compete and reach new customers and local training opportunities to ensure our communities have the skills we need with the potential to create hundreds of apprenticeships and graduate places. EDG looks forward to continuing to work closely with Lower Thames Crossing Team to maximise the benefits from these opportunities."

Linda Dolan
"I feel that there has been little thought or concerns for the health, wellbeing and safety for the residents of Thurrock and Basildon. The increase and disruption from traffic noise and rise in pollution with the work to be undertaken. I feel this is an issue that should be taken under revue and publish the results."

Penny Ellmore
"The project is not value for money and will not solve the problems at the Dartford crossing as originally intended. It will destroy thousands of acres of rural farmland and increase traffic in an area of Thurrock which is already at its maximum. The planned route is in the wrong place and should be further to the east. Communities and local historical villages will be ruined forever."

Alison Shepherd
"I'm concerned about damage to woodland and precious natural habitats for wildlife as well as the loss of valuable green space around Shorne park and the surrounding area. I'm also concerned about high Carbon emissions from the increase in traffic. Poor air quality, due to traffic pollution, is already a problem in the Medway and Gravesend areas and this proposed development will only make matters worse."

David Reynolds
"I wish to air my views about the proposed lower Thames crossing. I wish to enter objections to the pollution and extra traffic that this tunnel will bring to Thurrock This will be a environmental disaster for Thurrock. We already have rmajor pollution issues and when Dartford bridge huts the area grinds tos halt. This new tunnel will aggravate the issue. There will be loss of wildlife and damage to their environment. More traffic will lead to more pollution co2. Also increased noise and lighting."

Emma Tristram
"I object to the scheme for the following reasons. 1. The scheme would not relieve congestion at the Dartford Crossing. 2. The scheme would lead to a large (50%) increase in traffic at a time when, because of climate change and the Net Zero promise, traffic needs to reduce. 3. The scheme would lead to a large increase in carbon emissions. 4. The scheme would cause destruction and impacts on homes and communities. 5. The scheme would destroy woodland, trees, hedgerows and green belt. 6. The scheme would severely impact wildlife and habitat, including that of protected species. 7. The scheme does not include facilities for public transport to use the crossing. 8. The scheme does not include facilities for non-motorised users (walkers, cyclists, horse riders) to use the crossing."

John Elliott
"I do find some difficulty in conforming exactly with the National Policy Statement as it is clearly in conflict with more recent government policies (eg the carbon reduction strategy and the Environment Act). However the consequences of my main points will demonstrate that this proposed scheme does not work in any respect. It is stated and I understand that the main purpose of the LTC is to relieve traffic and congestion at Dartford. Furthermore the methods used by National Highways to quantify economic benefits of the scheme are highly suspect and do not provide our decision makers with a useful and honest explanation of the real benefits. It is notable also that even the calculated 'economic' benefit cost ratio is extremely low when compared with almost any other investment and so provides extremely poor value for the taxpayer. Predicted national Traffic growth (if it is natural) together with its use in this particular area would also be covered. It is clear from much evidence that the modelling shows that the LTC will relieve Dartford crossing. National Highways evidence does and will show that there is some but quite small relief. There is clear real evidence that, certainly river crossings of the Thames, will only provide very small relief and that only for up to about two years at peak times - the times when congestion and any falsely calculated relief would normally be calculated as providing a significant part of the 'economic benefits'. While the effects on traffic across the river and on both sides will make congestion worse throughout the area, there would also be consequential effects on pollution and reliability the latter of which is key for business as there will be more widespread and unpredictable congestion. While I understand that there has been much option consideration, there are many other strategies (including non-road options) for reducing congestion at Dartford Crossing. While this would not form the main part of my representations they should perhaps be considered at the hearing."

Linda Holland
"The road will be in front of my bungalow. My concern is noise, pollution, disruption over a long period of time due to closure of the road I live. How will I access my property. Will the local bus still run. Will my bins get emptied. Water run off from the proposed new road into Baker Street and into my cesspit. Your "birds eye view " of the proposed new road is useless without showing how the local roads interact. Many of the consultations we have had, questions have been answered with "I don't know". No local knowledge has been taken into account especially regarding local businesses, homes, access and the very pretty trees and woodland will not be mature for 10-20 years, what happens before then?"

London Cycling Campaign
"We will make a representation in the context of targets and aims contained in national policy statements on issues including but not necessarily limited to transport decarbonisation, mode shift, roadspace reallocation and repurposing, and net zero, and the impacts on the roads network in nearby outer London."

Paul Howsam
"The traffic situation around GRavesend is already untenable due to all of the below 1. Bluewater 2. Ebbsfleet Valley 3. Proposed Theme Park. To add this additional crossing will crate even more congestion and misery. The answer is a viable public transport alternative linking Kent & Essex."

David Williams
"I do not believe this proposal is warranted given the current state of affairs we as both a country and planet, are facing. This will massively increase carbon emissions in the midst of the climate emergency by not only destroying 1000’s of acres of farmland, woodland and natural habitat, but by inducing cross river traffic. There are also huge flaws in the cost effectiveness of the project for very little reward."

Glyn Jarvis
"I am concerned that the land take in Thurrock is unnecessary and further investigation should be undertaken to examine a route which enters Essex from Kent at a point which is further east."

Inspire You Wellbeing Ltd
"-We are hoping to see more cycling infrastructure and are happy to see the inclusion of foot bridges. We hope that in the future there is more availability for people to use healthy modes of transport and would hope this project could include the need for exercise to benefit overall wellbeing. -We are excited about the greenery and ponds seen around the road and hope this will enhance the oxygen levels and air quality, we hope that some wildlife tunnels will be included to make habitats viable"

Janice McAleavey
"The health and safety of Thurrock residents is a main concern of mine as we will be surrounded by air pollution and noise that will have a detrimental impact on the people of this area. This particular route will not solve the congestion problems at the existing dartford crossing and will be a very costly mistake. This route will also devastate farmland, woods and wildlife."

Naomi Cooper
"Doesn’t meet the objectives it set out to achieve Not economical, no value for money at over £10 billion - other spending would be needed as a direct result of this flawed project Would not solve problems of oversubscribed/used Dartford Crossing Inadequate connections, incidents cause gridlock No provision for cross river active travel - not viable for public transport due to lack of adequate connections Years of construction impacts Increase in carbon emissions, air and noise pollution - our area is already highly polluted due to large roads Whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5 Loss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland Destroy and impact woodland, trees, hedgerows, Green Belt land Devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, including the protected species Destruction and impacts to homes and communities."

Hobbs Parker Property Consultants LLP on behalf of Owners of RK & D Shearer
"The representation will cover the following matters: 1. Extent and scale of Permanent Freehold Acquisition 2. Extent and scale of Temporary Acquisition 3. Severance of Farm 4. Impact on Access to Farm 5. Permanent and temporary impact on Farm Buildings 6. Importance of Agriculture and Agricultural Land 7. Impact of Public Rights of Way and Access 8. Impact of scheme on rented land at Great Clayne Farm"

Paul Parmenter
"Pollution and distraction of country life. The removal of access to current road and additional cost and mileage that I will increase my carbon footprint to travel locally The increase iin traffic on local roads including the new road to replace current access. The creation of rat runs during and after the possible construction loss of access while construction takes place. Noise dust and motor pollution during and after construction j"

Richard Hawker
"Lower Thames Crossing. Although I live a considerable distance from the proposed scheme, I am aware of its massive scale, and the disastrous effect it will have upon the area of the lower Thames, in extending the sprawl of London, which we should be trying to contain, and inevitably damaging the value of this important area for wildlife. Forty-five years ago, I regularly travelled across the Thames, before the Queen Elizabeth bridge and the M25 were built. We were all told that that massive undertaking was essential for the commerce of London, and the whole country. It was to be a final encircling of the capital. There was no talk then that a further Thames crossing would ever be proposed. The M25 was going to be the solution to London’s traffic problems, once and for all. It worked for a while, but it is clear that building roads to cure congestion is an endless task, and therefore a different policy is needed. The cost is outrageously huge, well over £1billion, when there are so many other calls on resources, such as healthcare, the war in Ukraine, keeping the cost of living at an affordable level for the poorest. No matter where one lives, one has to be very much aware of the climate crisis. The need to tackle it has been accepted by the government. Indeed, laws are in place to limit carbon emissions, and yet the government is proposing this massive scheme, which will inevitably produce huge amounts of carbon in its construction, and even more in its operation. Use of road vehicles would be bound to increase, against the recommendations of the government’s own climate change committee. Reading the information produced by the local group, it is clear that the traffic forecasst are woefully inaccurate, lacking the simplest analysis. I object to this scheme. [Redacted] 25 January 2023"

Stuart Dixon
"Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project comprising 14 miles of Trunk Road linking the A2 and M25 through a Tunnel under the River Thames at Gravesend (LTC). According to Government procurement strategy: The right model for public sector construction procurement in the UK is one in which: clients issue a brief that concentrates on required performance and outcome; designers and constructors work together to develop an integrated solution that best meets the required outcome. Recommending the LTC in its current iteration is a difficult decision to make. There is potential for inequality and further harm to be done in the current approach. This is contrary to the government environment and climate change committee, who say government must support behaviour change to meet climate targets. Given the number of changes in the political, economic, social and technical factors used in the original design occurring since inception, there is public concern as to whether the infrastructure proposed by the application is appropriate. Also doubt as to whether the plan proposed can be modified without reverting to another option. In the design of any procurement, specification of functional (what needs to be done) and non-functional requirements (how it is achieved) is the concern of the project. Roles need to be respected in the design process, while the influence by potential suppliers is managed. The client here, are local communities, and community groups affected by the problem or proposed solution. The role of global victims of climate change need also to be considered. The influence on the design and choice of the solution should be protected from another role, road users, who are themselves heavily influenced by the petrochemical industry, the motor industry and the construction industry and possibly the government who are old school and subject to lobbying. If that were the case, the specification and plan before PINS would be very different. The aim of this submission is to ask for PINS not to recommend this project to the SoS for Transport if it has any doubt about the roles of the people specifying and approving the specification and choice of the solution being presented. Also to ask that the following short list of changes are fully considered in the resulting re-design: • Pandemic. Lessons Learnt about Air Quality. • Brexit • Levelling up. • New and improved ports on the East Coast, North of the Thames. • Shifts in the market for EV's. A battery factory has gone into liquidation. EV's emit CO2 and Particulates. • The Cost of living crisis. • Better Broadband • Better technology (AI) (ANPR). • Attitude change • pedestrian zones • Active Travel. • Working from home • Greater Knowledge about the climate and the effects of pollution. • Social media. • Delivery services with massive warehousing. • Climate change and nature dominate the headlines. • ULEZ and LEZ are seen as solutions to climate change and nature loss • War and Conflict, Globalisation. • The petrochemical industry and motor industries have both been discredited and yet heavily influence the need for road traffic. • Plans for a Tramway between Kent and Essex include a tunnel. Etc."

Tracey Payne
"I have concerns about the air quality in the area which is already high. The consultation process has been lacking with missed information sessions in affected areas, it wasn’t completely inclusive and information provided was sometimes incorrect or unavailable when requested. The construction works would be horrendous in an already heavily trafficked area of Essex. The lack of connectivity in some places seems like we would go through years of build which would increase local traffic even more than it is now. The dartford crossing would also still be over capacity when it is built. How can the cost be justified when the country is in financial crisis. The loss of wildlife, green belt and peoples homes is devastier for Thurrock."

Dover Harbour Board
"The Port of Dover is responsible for facilitating £144bn of trade and 33% of the UK’s trade in goods with the EU, half of which is travelling to and from beyond London and the South East to support industry and commerce in the Midlands and North of the UK. Indeed, the Port was recently successful in securing £45 million of the Government’s Levelling Up funding, in part because of the national role it plays in supporting the levelling up agenda through the multiple sectors that move goods via Dover and the businesses and consumers across the UK that rely on them. As such, the Port of Dover is an advocate for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) and the strategic benefits it offers for the vital north-south flows of international road freight between Dover and the rest of Great Britain that support both the levelling up agenda and the national economy more broadly. Whilst an advocate of the scheme, the Port is also keen to ensure that, in tackling congestion at Dartford, the scheme does not displace the congestion to Dover, causing severe disruption to north-south flows there. The Port of Dover is connected via two strategic routes – the M20/A20 and M2/A2. Although the M20/A20 is the signed route to Dover (hence there is broadly a 60:40 split in traffic between the routes), we know from previous experience that when the M20 has a problem, the freight traffic naturally diverts to the M2/A2, with up to 70% of Dover’s freight traffic using this route. Once the LTC is built, potentially around half of the Port’s traffic will rely on the A2 as a matter of routine due to the time/cost benefits of that route. Port of Dover handles up to 110 miles of freight traffic per day at peak and the last few miles of the A2 into Dover are a drastically sub-standard single carriageway, providing minimal resilience to one of the UK’s most important trade routes as well as the local traffic movements. The A2 near Dover will therefore be under severe strain without suitable parallel investment. The Port of Dover remains committed to supporting the LTC because of its overarching benefits to the national role the Port plays. However, it is important in this process to recognise that the strategic benefits the LTC brings in this regard are equally reliant in their realisation on ensuring that the Dover end of this key strategic north-south route is also enhanced (known as the A2 Access Scheme, which is a National Highways pipeline project for RIS3). Working together as coordinated strategic investments, the LTC and A2 Access Scheme will make a significant contribution to overall UK trade resilience as well as keep local communities and businesses moving."

Essex Bridleways Association
"Essex Bridleways Association has been in detailed discussions on this project from the outset. As such EBA wishes to ensure that agreements reached to date are not detrimentally altered and are delivered as agreed. Additionally we wish to monitor the plans of new equestrian routes to ensure their design, proposed building materials are of sufficient quality and that the routes are fit for purpose"

Peter Booth
"The scheme is unnecessary and unaffordable. The local disruption is unacceptable and will cause permanent damage to ever dwindling areas for nature and conservation."

Sandra Elliott
"My home is very close to the proposed route north of the river. I am concerned about the environmental impact of the destructions of large swathes of green space and ancient woodland on residents living in an area with already high pollution. The road will destroy local communities and adversely affect travel in the borough of Thurrock. I intend to make submission expressing the above concerns."

Alan Turner
"I wish to object to part of the proposed route of the LTC. At the northern end, where it is to merge with the M25, your proposed route will carve a devastating path through the Thames Chase Community Forest. This woodland was created by volunteers when the M25 was new, to mitigate the negative impacts of the motorway, destroying it now to make way for another motorway is utterly appalling."

Andrea Kay
"I believe that the proposed crossing will add to pollution, which is already over legal limits in Thurrock"

Esso Petroleum Company, Limited
"We are a landowner affected by the scheme. We are in process of selling the relevant land (a former petrol station on the north side of the A2) on agreed terms to National Highways. The sale appears stalled due to lack of response from NH over the last year. We are concerned they will instead seek to use compulsory acquisition powers. Our particular concern is that the proposed works would disturb ground conditions at what is currently a safe and secure idle site. We therefore request that National Highways, as the promoter of the works, is fully responsible for assessing and dealing with any contamination that could be released as a result of its works."

Lesley Goodwin on behalf of Glen Platt
"My home in South Ockendon will look directly over the LTC road when it is built. Firstly, the tunnel is to close to the current Dartford Crossing to be a viable alternative it will just add to congestion in Thurrock which will basically be a car park. Option C will wind wildly through the little bit of Green Belt we have left, protected land, a countryside barrier around the city that is supposed to give city/urban dwellers a rural, fresher air, calm retreat, it will be gone forever. The NOISE POLLUTION will stop people from wanting to use any leisure areas/facilities as sounds of nature will drowned out by 24/7 constant groaning of heavy traffic. The AIR POLLUTION already clogs our lungs, thick dust lays over everything now, our gardens, cars and windows. The LIGHT POLLUTION already steals our night skies, blots the landscape, how can a major new motorway benefit the people of Thurrock? To save the planet we are told to use our cars less, more of us are working from home....why do we need more motorways with more lanes. Freight should be moved by rail not road. We need better Public Transport and if more motorways are needed they should be constructed underground in tunnels as they do in so many other countries. Seems there is a two tier system with regards to destruction of the green belt."

Lesley Goodwin on behalf of Jaime Anderson
"My home will look directly over the LTC road when it is built. The tunnel is to close to the current Dartford Crossing to be a viable alternative it will just add to congestion in Thurrock which will basically be a car park. Option C will wind wildly through the little bit of Green Belt we have left, protected land, a countryside barrier around the city that is supposed to give city/urban dwellers a rural, fresher air, calm retreat, it will be gone forever. The noise pollution will stop people from wanting to use any leisure areas/facilities as sounds of nature will drowned out by 24/7 constant groaning of heavy traffic. The air pollution already clogs our lungs, thick dust lays over everything now, our gardens, cars and windows. The light pollution already steals our night skies, blots the landscape, how can a major new motorway benefit the people of Thurrock? To save the planet we are told to use our cars less, more of us are working from home....why do we need more motorways with more lanes. Freight should be moved by rail not road. We need better Public Transport and if more motorways are needed they should be constructed underground in tunnels as they do in so many other countries and if that motorway emerged from a tunnel in Bourton on the Water would the plans get the go ahead???"

Letrois Bernard
"Total disagreement with the proposals on air pollution and other environmental grounds. The carving up of Thurrock by a new major motorway Lack of consultation and relevant easy to read materials Lack of shielding for village communities affected by the proposals Lack of care given to the Borough of Thurrock The cost of the proposals and whether it constitutes value for money"

Lesley Goodwin on behalf of Margaret Platt
"LTC road when it is built will be directly in front of my home. Firstly, the tunnel is to close to the current Dartford Crossing to be a viable alternative it will just add to congestion in Thurrock which will basically be a car park. Option C will wind wildly through the little bit of Green Belt we have left, protected land, a countryside barrier around the city that is supposed to give city/urban dwellers a rural, fresher air, calm retreat, it will be gone forever. The NOISE POLLUTION will stop people from wanting to use any leisure areas/facilities as sounds of nature will drowned out by 24/7 constant groaning of heavy traffic. The AIR POLLUTION already clogs our lungs, thick dust lays over everything now, our gardens, cars and windows. [Redacted] . The LIGHT POLLUTION already steals our night skies, blots the landscape, how can a major new motorway benefit the people of Thurrock? To save the planet we are told to use our cars less, more of us are working from home....why do we need more motorways with more lanes. Freight should be moved by rail not road. We need better Public Transport and if more motorways are needed they should be constructed underground in tunnels as they do in so many other countries, why not?"

Medway Council
"This Relevant Representation outlines the main issues for the Medway unitary authority area relevant to the proposed Lower Thames Crossing (LTC). It is understood that the Relevant Representation will be used by the Examining Authority to carry out an initial assessment before the Preliminary Meeting. Medway Council anticipates making further written representations during the Examination that will expand on this Relevant Representation. The following matters are agreed: Need for the proposed LTC • Medway Council supports the need for the project. Nitrogen deposition • A landscape scale compensation approach, rather than a series of scattered sites, is more likely to deliver multiple benefits. • Compensatory land should be publicly accessible, where appropriate. • National speed limit enforcement between M2 junctions 3 and 4 is being considered by the project team to reduce nitrogen deposition. Consideration of reducing the speed limit, which could have unintended consequences for the local road network, is understood to have been ruled out by the project team. The following matters are under discussion or not agreed: Growth assumptions • It is understood that the project team’s transport model was built following the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Transport Analysis Guidance. • Growth within the transport model is capped in line with DfT traffic forecasts and adjusted locally to account for developments with planning status (as of 30 September 2021). This comprises the Core Scenario which forms the basis of other assessments. • The DfT traffic forecasts represent growth assumptions that are lower than Medway’s development needs and this presents challenges for local plan-making. • Medway Council is reviewing the Uncertainty Log of developments set out within the Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report (Appendix C, Annex A). Air quality • Medway Council is concerned about: the number of receptors modelled in Medway; the absence of any analysis in respect of PM2.5; the need for air quality modelling during construction; and the indicative predictions that exceedance of air quality objectives would occur at receptor locations adjacent to the M2 and the A228 in Medway. Materials, assets and waste • Medway Council is reviewing application documents relating to materials, assets and waste relevant to matters set out in our Statement of Common Ground. Local highway mitigations • National Highways is not committing to any direct additional funding for mitigation of effects on the wider network through the Development Consent Order. • Instead, National Highways refer to existing investment processes and collaborative work with local authorities. • This provides little certainty that local impacts can and will be mitigated. Local highway monitoring and management • Medway Council is reviewing the list of monitoring locations within the Wider Network Impact Monitoring and Management Plan. Toll charging • During a 28 July 2020 briefing from the project team, Medway Council members called for a resident and business discount scheme to be extended to Medway. • It is understood that this would be a decision for the Secretary of State following any decision to grant development consent, and that the DfT may require a consultation."

Mr John Thacker
"1. Continued rising Cost of LTC 2. Will not meet its original purpose to resolve the problem at the Dartford River Crossing 3. Will add to the frequent congestion issues on the M25 both directions between Junctions 27 & 30 4. Stanford le Hope Detour North of Thames unrealistic. 5. Non drivers or public transport will be unable to use the LTC 6. Increased noise levels 7. Air Pollution won’t meet required standards. It will get worse over the 4 - 5+ years of construction, increasing health risks and harm to the Environment. 8. Loss of Greenbelt land and wildlife habitats. 8. 7."

David Kay
"Numerous study’s and reports have already highlighted the area has illegal levels of air pollution. Will only partially resolve the issues at the Dartford Crossing. The constant tinkering with the Junction to the A13 and the fact they still cannot get all the roads to free flow without vehicles lane swapping from the left and right at the same time or having to go to another junction and come back means there isn’t enough room and it isn’t fit for purpose."

Robert William Quick
"- the proposed route will not meet it's primary commitment of reducing congestion on the Dartford Crossing and is therefore a waste of tax payers money. - the construction as planned will not deliver a route that meets the Air Pollution limits as is required in government guidelines. - as a resident not 500 metres from the proposed route , neither i or other residents in Thurrock get any benefit from the construction but have to endure up to 10 years of construction traffic, noise and air pollution. - NH have deliberately withheld information about this proposal despite frequent requests. - the design of the junction with A13, A1013, A1089 & Manorway is going to increase congestion for local traffic, even worse than existing congestion at Dartford Crossing. - many areas of ancient woodlands, SSSP designated areas and other wildlife will be devastated. - for many residents in my age group [Redacted] the construction period will devastate our last remaining years, likely reducing our life expectancy with no actual benefit to the area. - in a period when we should be reducing traffic on or road systems, utilising rail and sea routes instead, this is totally the wrong plan, on the wrong route if we are to meet our part in the world wide move on reducing CO2 & other harmful gases in the atmosphere."

The Orsett Community Forum
"The damage on the rural nature of Thurrock and its green belt The air pollution concerns have still not been addressed The fact that the proposals do not address the issues at Dartford The cost vs the benefit The inadequate and large junction at Baker Street The increase of traffic through Orsett Village and surrounding rural roads in Thurrock Lack of protection for village communities such as Orsett, Orsett Heath, Baker Street and Chadwell St Mary The scheme functioning as a M25 by pass which is not needed. The poor consultation with some residents being sent information and others not receiving anything. Poorly designed changes which still do not provide any benefit to Thurrock Carving the Borough of Thurrock in half Lack of proper scrutiny at other options further east which would provide real resilience for South Essex and beyond such as the 'Canvey Option'. The impact of construction on our rural communities The effect on the A13, which is Thurrocks main trunk road, both during construction and once the new scheme is open."

Markus Schmidt
"I would like to review the documentation to ensure I get the best possible outcome, which I didn't get at the Dartford crossing. I am still paying crossing fees today as your residents scheme is flawed and not covering all scenarios relevant to be eligible for the crossing fee exemptions."

Church of St Mary the Virgin, Chalk
"1. The chosen route for the proposed Lower Thames Crossing may not achieve its main purpose of relieving congestion at Dartford. 2. The methodology for assessing the public's response to the various proposals has been flawed. 3. The development will be disadvantageous to the people of Chalk, and large parts of Gravesend and Shorne, in that the environment (including wildlife) will be significantly negatively impacted, both in the construction and when in use. 4. The mitigations offered are insufficient."

Elaine Denmead
"We are concerned about the impact the Crossing and new roads will have on the area around Thurrock where we live. Initially, the work which will be required during the build process will be extremely disruptive and cause a huge amount of pollution and noise. This area is an important site for nature and particularly migrating birds which will lose a massive area of suitable land. Also the massive impact that the increased lorry traffic which will have on our narrow country lanes both from a safety perspective and also a pollution perspective. The volume of road traffic in the area is already so big, due to the increased building of new houses and the restrictions of access caused by the existing level crossing, causing severe traffic queues in and out of East Tilbury. The main concern after completion will be the huge increase in traffic pollution from the new road which will run very close to our village. We need more green space for our health not more pollution. This road will not help the people living here during our daily lives, there will be no improvement to our local journeys at all."

Hill Residential Ltd
"Dear Sirs, Hill Residential Ltd has contractual interests over wider land known as Kemps Farm. Kemps Farm includes land in titles; AA35431, EX864036, EX861191 and EX861187. On the basis of the contractual position, Hill Residential Ltd and Ingrebourne Kemps Ltd are working together to promote the land for residential development. As you are aware, Thurrock District Council is preparing its new Local Plan for the area which will form part of the statutory Development Plan that sets out and allocates sites for development and levels of growth. We have made representations to the Local Plan process and will continue to liaise with officers and members regarding the future allocation of the site for predominantly residential use. Our discussions have been extremely positive regarding the allocation of the site and, notwithstanding feedback to date, the sustainability credentials of the site indicate it is an appropriate location for residential development. Accordingly, we are very positive that the site will be developed for residential use in the short-term, most likely before the LTC is finished. We wish to register our objection to the proposal of the WCH track along Dennis and West Road subject to understanding the specific detail and how it will interact with our proposals. The WCH track along our western and southern boundary involves a significant land take and there maybe solutions that involves using land already accessed by the public. The new Little Belhus Country Park to the west and south of our site already provides for such an access route. National Highways could improve this to bring forward a WCH track that fulfils your objectives whilst also offering a more pleasant and beneficial route for cyclists and pedestrians, thereby mitigating your severance impacts and encouraging use of the Country Park. Furthermore this significant land take appears to require 3-5m worth of our land that forms our frontage. This will have a significant negative impact on developable land as part of our proposal and consequential value of the land. The fact that the WCH track will be interrupted by a number of future access points to our development raises questions as to whether the proposed location is inappropriate and ineffective and better located to route it through the Little Belhus Country Park. Notwithstanding the above, it is paramount that we retain the right to access our site in it’s current and future use. Should you proceed with your current plans, future points of access are not to be limited in terms of inter alia: use; frequency; quantum; position or, our ability to vary. Our masterplan allows for a number of access points along West Road and Dennis Road. It would be wholly unacceptable for your WCH track to inhibit our proposals in any way and we would resist any proposal to do so in the strongest terms. We note previous correspondence from yourselves suggests there has not been any objection to this WCH route previously. This is incorrect and I understand you have been provided with previous objections made as part of earlier consultations. We would be willing to meet with you to discuss the specifics of the track and our masterplan as our proposal is likely to incorporate facilities for sustainable modes of transport that will improve the permeability of the site in comparison to the current PROWs over an agricultural field. Regards, [Redacted]"

Leonidas Peppard
"I wish to make representations concerning the deleterious effects that the proposed road may have on the pulchritude - I speak now of physical beauty - of the Thurrock countryside. This is a section of the English countryside that is often overlooked in favour of the more popular and self-assured Kent, who (if I may indulge in figurative language) is prone to strutting and swaggering as if the gold on his shoe buckles came straight from Chrysus himself. I intend to prove beyond reasonable doubt that modest Thurrock is in fact unparalleled and that the scars to be left on her by the so-called Longer Thames Crossover are unjustifiable."

Lesley Keefe
"I am a long term resident of East Tilbury ([Redacted]) and have seen the area change very much over the years. This project does nothing to improve the lives of East Tilbury residents, even when completed. Before which we have to put up with years of construction work, extra pollution, increased traffic volume and more, whilst we will not be able to access this road, without going miles out of our way. The same applies when leaving here and going to other areas, particularly north of here, have to go eastwards on the A13 before being able to access roads back home. It also will ruin our riverside walks, in particular 2 Forts way, with all the spoil from the tunnel being dumped in so call hillocks right on the rivers edge, which is part of a flood plain. That is without all that the damage this will cause to all our wonderful, and in many cases protected wildlife."

Nigel Irvine Bourne
"The chosen route for the proposed Lower Thames Crossing may not achieve its main purpose of relieving congestion at Dartford. The methodology for assessing the public’s response to the various proposals has been flawed. The development will be disadvantageous to the people of Chalk, and large parts of Gravesend and Shorne, in that the environment (including wildlife) will be significantly negatively impacted, both in the construction and when in use. The mitigations offered are insufficient."

South East Local Enterprise Partnership
"The South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) is a public private partnership which seeks to encourage growth and investment in the South East, to support businesses and encourage development of our communities and local economies in our area. A local economy limited by congestion SELEP represents many organisations that are directly impacted by current congestion at the Dartford Crossing and the surrounding areas. We also represent businesses and estuarine communities that have seen opportunities for growth hampered by limitations in connectivity across the Thames to the east of London. We have no doubt that this scheme provides a solution and the resilience needed to keep goods and labour moving and will be a vital foundation for future growth in the South East. Opportunities for key projects The crossing will also open up new opportunities, changing market catchments and travel to work areas, connecting employees and employers, buyers and sellers, business and customers. In this way, the Crossing will enable success at key locations such as Thames Freeport, DP World and Tilbury Ports, and in new Garden Communities in North Kent and South Essex. Benefit to local residents and businesses We have been working closely with Lower Thames Crossing team and other major projects in the area to ensure the demand for skills for future schemes can be met from local residents and local training providers, and that local businesses are ready to play their part in the supply chain. We are keen to ensure local residents and businesses can benefit from the opportunities such investment will bring. Strategic Economic growth The Lower Thames Crossing will also play a role in supporting the delivery of broader regional economic priorities that are outlined in the SELEP Recovery and Renewal Strategy. It will, for example, be vital in ‘levelling up’ deprived communities in the South East. It will support growth in high value and globally competitive industries, providing a catalyst for wider investment, job creation and regeneration. Crucially, it will also help cement the South East’s position as the UK’s Global Gateway and as a centre for trade and investment. It will make the flow of imported and exported goods easier, smoother, and more reliable, magnifying the impact of regional investment in sectors such as logistics, manufacturing and distribution. Clean growth ambitions Finally, we applaud and endorse the Lower Thames Crossing’s position as a ‘pathfinder project’, leading the way for carbon neutral construction as part of its efforts to be the greenest road ever built in the UK. The South East is well placed to support this agenda with excellent credentials and some fantastic businesses ready to support. We welcome the new investments and innovation that will flow into this sector as a direct result of the realisation of this bold ambition. We are also keen to ensure local residents and businesses have the right skills and capabilities to support this growing sector."

Anne Copeland
"I wish to state that I have followed this since the beginning and do not want this crossing. It is too close to the Queen Elizabeth crossing and starting at junction29 will be of no benefit to us in Thurrock, as it is effectively a bypass road will eradicate much of the green spaces, fields and natural areas of nature within our borough. We do not want this crossing here, we have enough pollution as it is and this will exacerbate more. Our poor lungs here cannot take it, or the upheaval on our roads as it is being built!"

Carolyn Ager
"This present project will not cure the traffic problem. Outer village roads will be gridlocked. Carbon emissions will rocket. Countryside ruined."

Clive Graeme Bramley
"Simply that if you build more roads you get more traffic: even electric vehicles are traffic, which pollute and consume resources and have a high carbon footprint to build ad decommission: the money could be much better spent elsewhere: the UK is already one of the most overbuilt, congested country in the world and does not need more roads."

Dr Elinor Thompson
"I object strongly, completely to this entire project. It is completely anachronistic to all sensible and long term community, health, transport, environment, pollution and climate change policy and knowledge."

Gordon Hayers
"I strongly object to the LTC. These thoughts represent only some of my reasons. Having been born in and lived in Thurrock most of my [Redacted] years, I’ve witnessed many changes. Over the decades many major polluters disappeared and Thurrock became a more green and pleasant place to live. The push from rail to road transport, building the Lakeside retail park and shopping centre started a reversal of that trend in Thurrock. I’m sure that many on the Kent side of the Thames will agree. Building the LTC will make little difference to the problems it was intended to solve at the Dartford crossing - so why waste at least a further £10m - adding further emissions that we are legally bound by the Paris Agreement to 68% reductions by 2030! As recently reported, the UK could be the only major economy to shrink in 2023 – can we afford to build this road which will inevitably increase road traffic? Should this ill conceived crossing go ahead not only will Thurrock have noise pollution, light pollution and emissions from the west side it will have the same pollution from it’s east side. Not only will people suffer the consequences so will the wildlife, some endangered, that consider Thurrock and Kent their home."

Les Gamester
"The road plan appears to be badly thought out regarding the alleged reduction in traffic using the Dartford Crossing. The destruction to our local countryside will be devastating, especially considering the insane, and concurrent rate of house construction in the area, more to the benefit of builders than residents. The carbon footprint, both in construction and usage, will be increased rather than decreased as is claimed."

Michael Coates
"I want to see how it affects the roads around where I live and how long it will take to complete"

Mr Anthony G Scott
"there is enough pollution in Thurrock we do not need anymore, the roads can not cope with the amount of traffic at the moment let alone after it is finished."

Steve Birch
"The project would: increase traffic growth leading to more carbon emissions, and combined with the construction emissions (see below), the total carbon emissions from the scheme would be at least 6.6 million tonnes over its lifetime making this the biggest emitting scheme ever proposed (7.3.37 of the Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report); increase emissions from its construction by around an additional 2 million tonnes (at least, as National Highways are obscuring the real total with offsetting schemes), all within the critical fourth carbon budget when we need to achieve 68% reductions in UK carbon emissions by 2030 under our legally binding commitments under the Paris Agreement; not solve the congestion at the Dartford Crossing, as claimed by National Highways. The Dartford Crossing would be still be over capacity if the LTC were built. So the LTC fails to meet its own objectives. would impact on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its setting; increase air pollution and noise pollution which will have direct and indirect impacts on humans, the AONB, SACs, SSSI and endangered species; increase severance of local communities and the rights of way network. cost taxpayers at least £10 billion when the country cannot afford this. not be good value for money with a benefit-cost-ratio (BCR) of only 1.22 (meaning for every £1 spent, there will only be £1.22 of economic benefits) so is "Low" value for money according to government guidelines."

Steven Brace
"The extremely poor quality and complete Lack of detail in all of the hand outs with maps that are impossible to read. When information has bean requested no response or no answer given. The habitat and wildlife that will be lost as no one with local knowledge has been asked to show national highways just what is living on some of the land they are going to use some one to come and look and listen would have bean nice. [Redacted]."

Strutt & Parker on behalf of The landowners of the land as referenced on the Land Registry as BGL106153 – being Yue Keung Stephen Lee and Lai Yu Cheung
"We are instructed by Yue Keung Stephen Lee and Lai Yu Cheung (our clients) care of Strutt & Parker, Coval Hall, Rainsford Road, Chelmsford, CM1 2QF and of Flat C, 12/F., Wah Yu Court, 8 Hong Ping Street, Hong Kong in connection with National Highways Lower Thames Crossing proposals. Further to our responses on their behalf to National Highways previous Public Consultations our clients maintain their holding objection to the LTC proposals, as shown in the designs that were submitted as part of Highways DCO application. Assets We consider their following interests will be directly affected by the scheme: 1. The land owned as referenced on the Land Registry as BGL106153 The land is productive arable land growing a high yielding hay crop. Continuing growing of this crop could prove difficult/impossible both during and after the construction of the proposed scheme. The landowner has future plans to keep animals onsite as part of a smallholding. Comments/objections at present Following the numerous correspondence had with our client and National Highways representatives our client remains frustrated with Highways proposals. They had plans to move back to the UK permanently and utilise their land to form a smallholding where they would keep animals. However, Highways requirement for permanent acquisition of the vast majority of their land, to create “flood compensation areas” and “environmental mitigation” areas, would sterilise their ability to carry this out and leave them with a small parcel of land that would require a Right of Way to access. The clients therefore object to the proposed acquisition of their land on this basis, in particular to the proposals to acquire their two fields to the East. Oliver Lukies of Strutt & Parker For and on behalf of Yue Keung Stephen Lee and Lai Yu Cheung"

Tim Matthews
"Against the construction of this project"

Bonnie Hinz
"The proposed crossing plans are flawed , will cause problems for surrounding roads and are not fit for purpose"

Giles Dadd
"As a frequent user of the M25 Dartford Crossing I am keen for this project to go trough to relieve the pressure on the Crossing and the delays entailed. I am also an agricultural consultant on soils and have a strong interest on their use and preservation to produce food or other environmental schemes."

Karen Moore
"I am against the construction of LTC. I believe that the initial consultation was severely flawed and that the views of the local residents were not truly represented I am concerned over the loss of protected green belt land and ancient woodland I am concerned over the risk to the environment I believe there is a need for more capacity to cross the Thames, but the solution is not LTC in the proposed location"

Monica Saunders
"The application counters evidence of induced demand i.e. that the more road space provided the greater the volumes of traffic The scheme will increase Carbon Emissions, both in building and use at a time when the Climate emergency should be at the forefront and embedded in all policies and decisions, included in planning decisions. Moreover, the very likely increase in motor traffic (as evidenced by induced demand) will lead to greater pollution and poorer air quality. This is at a time when we are far off meeting the WHO's standard for air quality and pollutants, especially PM2.5, known to have no safe limits and is a safety risk for a number of health conditions including dementia/cognitive degeneration, some cancers and diabetes as well as respiratory conditions. The proposal does not meet the Govt's own strategy for net Zero, which should prioritise more sustainable modes of travel with investment which is greatly needed, including public transport as well as active travel."

Mrs. Jacqueline Thacker
"This is an outline of the principal submissions I intend to make in relation to the application. I reserve the right to raise further points at a later date if necessary. National Highways are running a series of Community Events on the LTC during February and I will be attending at least one of these. 1. Dartford Crossing issues will not be resolved by the LTC as was originally proposed. 2. Estimated cost of LTC has escalated even with cutting back on part of the original proposal. 2a. Financial and Environmental costs of the LTC outweigh possible benefits. 3. Estimated time for completion of LTC is 4 to 5.5 years. This includes 24 hour working in certain areas. Road closures, additional Construction Vehicles and Employees Traffic movements will cause monumental congestion and delays. 4. Air and Noise Pollution especially during construction will increase and with it associated health risks. Areas through which the proposed LTC will be built already experience some of the highest pollution in the UK. 5. Stanford Le Hope Detour issues. 6. No provision for Public Transport or cyclists to use the LTC. 7. No provision for rail or tram route within the scope of the LTC. Lack of futuristic foresight. 8. Previously considered and discarded Route Options would have been more viable in solving traffic issues and providing alternative Links from Essex to Kent and vice versa. Alternative option would also have facilitated scope for traffic to access other road networks serving the East of England etc. 9. Significant loss of Greenbelt land and wildlife habitats."

Rick Pedler
"A now out of date construction, Does not help dartford, to much damage to the environment, pollution levels not met . A2 will struggle, too expensive in a cost of living crisis. Proposed to be built in the totally wrong place . All round a complete waste of money and vandalism to the countryside."

Sandy Scotting
"The route looks very good to me and is essential to relieve the pressure on the extreme traffic problems around the Dartford crossing."

Sharon larsen
"I am worried about the amount of cars going through our village due to air pollution and carbon emission. This worries me due to my health. I am concerned about the farm land to be used in the area and our village being destroyed forever. I am concerned for the wildlife. I no longer see any hedgehogs and our wildlife will suffer further more endanger rare breads of animals. Noise will probably be more too."

Simon Pirani
"What I consider to be the main issues about the Lower Thames Crossing 1. Construction of the Lower Thames Crossing runs counter to the government’s Net Zero Strategy, which requires reductions in transport sector emissions of 42-56 MtCO2e/year by 2030, and of 81-94 MtCO2e/year by 2035 (Net Zero Strategy 2021, page 154). The UK is falling short of these targets. Lord Deben, chair of the Climate Change Committee, has told the government that, compared to the CCC estimate of transport sector reductions needed by 2030, 68 MtCO2e/year (higher than the government’s), the CCC projects a shortfall of 14 MtCO2e/year due to a “policy gap”, and a further 42 MtCO2e/year “at risk due to lack of firm policies and measures or those with delivery risks”. (Letter from Lord Deben to ministers, 11 October 2018.) The situation has not improved since these estimates were made. The failure to cut transport sector emissions could be described as a national emergency. If the LTC is built, it will make this emergency worse. Using figures in the first planning application, I estimated that, during construction, the LTC would each year add more than 0.3% of 2019 emissions. During sixty years of use, the LTC would each year add more than 0.04% of 2019 domestic transport emissions. This time period that stretches between four and six decades past the point at which transport sector emissions should be reduced to zero. Using the figures in chapter 15 of the environmental statement would produce higher percentages. 2. In addition to these direct effects, indirect effects include: a. The opportunity cost of financial and other resources being put into the LTC, instead of into projects that rapidly reduce transport sector emissions. b. The cumulative effect of building more roads, including the induced traffic effect and stimulation of vehicle purchases, all of which impacts negatively on emissions reduction. 3. Proper account should be taken of research showing that all new fossil-fuel-intensive infrastructure will put climate targets further out of reach. Roads are fossil-fuel-intensive, and will continue to be so for decades, even if the most optimistic prognoses of the effect of the introduction of electric vehicles are realised. This research includes: a. Dan Tong et al, “Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5degC climate target”, Nature vol. 572 (2019), pages 373-377.) (This shows that existing energy, transport and built infrastructure will cumulatively emit about 658 Gt CO2, compared to a total global budget of 420-580 Gt CO2 to achieve the 1.5°C target, and 1170-1500 Gt CO2 to achieve the 2°C target.) b. Felix Creutzig et al, “Urban infrastructure choices structure climate solutions”, Nature Climate Change vol. 6 (2016), pages 1054-1056. c. Steven Davis et al, “Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure”, Science vol. 329 (September 2010), pages 1330-1332.) (end)"

Susan King
"Causing additional pollution including noise, light and air pollution in the area where the M25 is already heavily congested when the current bridge and tunnel are disrupted."

WELCOM Forum
"As im the WELCOM Forum Secretary i will relay issues that may arise from the presentation of the Design Consent Order onwards on behalf of the residents of East Tilbury, West Tilbury and Linford who are in the direct building line at the begining of the Portal. The points we are most concerned about are the following Green Belt Pollution Air Quality Noise Light Pollution Health Impact Flooding"

Antony Starns
"The proposed lower Thames crossing is not fit for purpose. Your own studies show that it will not reduce the congestion on the QE11 bridge as advertised, it will exceed targeted carbon output, and will cost billions more than stated. The plans are out of date, and the wrong route has been chosen. As a resident of Aveley I can confirm that nobody in the local area wants this crossing and we object to it being imposed upon us in the strongest possible terms."

Brian Smith
"I object to the proposed LTC based on the following. As a resident living within 500 metres of the proposed road and within a mile of the a13/a1089 junction I have severe concerns about the impact of noise and air pollution during the construction which is likely be for over 5 years. As a motorist, I have significant concerns on the disruption on my local roads with traffic light controls, diversions and closures during a 5 yr + period. As a cyclist, I believe that there will be a net loss of quiet lanes which I frequently use currently such as Hornsby Lane and station road, west tilbury. Furthermore no provision has been made for cyclists to use the tunnel. Crazy! As a current frequent user of the dartford crossing, I am not at all convinced that the ltc will relieve traffic at the existing crossing with admission that only 20% of traffic will use the ltc. And it will be nearly 10 years before this is realised. Multiple roads leading to the dartFord crossing bottleneck is the issue needing resolved by building a straight through tunnel for through traffic. Finally, As a tax payer I am aghast at the budget required for a project that will deliver so little benefit when completed and hugely disruptive to so many during construction. This is not a vfm project and the country simply cannot afford this National highways vanity project. I object to the Lower Thames Crossing based on the following; As a resident living within 0.5 mile of the proposed road I have deep concerns on the impact of the 6 year construction period which will create new and significant carbon emissions from heavy vehicle movements. The noise and air quality of my area will deteriorate for a long period of time. I suffer from asthma and this will negatively impact mine and many other's medical condition. As a cyclist, I am not at all convinced at the suggestion of a net increase of green routes which is included in some of the "promotional" material. Cycling is my only form of exercise and I currently enjoy quiet roads and routes to the south east (station road) and north (Hornsby lane) of my location (Chadwell St Mary) which will be massively negatively impacted and in some cases permanently closed. Despite attending and asking reps at NH events, no-one has been able to advise the length of road closures during the construction phase. As a Thurrock council tax payer, I have real concerns at the Council's ability to prepare and present a full response to the LTC planning process. My concerns are due to the financial position of the Council severely limiting professional officers ability to respond on behalf of residents and the Council (Thurrock is opposed to the LTC) as only statutory services will be delivered. As a commuter using the Dartford crossing 3 x times weekly I am more aware of the real world of the current issues than many data analysts sitting at desks and perhaps only making occasional visits to the crossing. The pressure, particularly on the northbound crossing will NOT BE SOLVED with the LTC. The issues are purely down to a confluence of traffic from the local areas joining the through traffic at the entrance to the tunnel and at Dartford. This is particularly acute with the high concentration of logistics parks on all 4 corners of the crossing meaning a high volume of traffic is HGV - big and slow. Removing a small proportion of traffic which uses the A2 will have negligible effect on the overall volume and certainly does not provide any justification /VFM in my opinion. I believe the best solution is the previously rejected A14, long tunnel crossing which will deal with c 50% of current crossing traffic leaving the existing crossing to deal with local traffic, including the logistics parks. Alternatively, a short crossing from the A206 (in Bexley) to the A13 across Rainham Marshes will be significantly cheaper, easier to achieve planning permission, less impactful for residents, less carbon producing and crucially would provide a really usable alternative for a large volume of logistics traffic, releasing pressure on the tunnel. I suspect it could be delivered in less than half the proposed 6 year time of the LTC."

British Horse Society (on behalf of Kent) (British Horse Society (on behalf of Kent))
"The British Horse Society London & South East is the UK’s largest equestrian charity with over 118,000 members representing the country’s 3 million horse riders. BHS staff and volunteers from Kent and Essex have worked with National Highways and its representatives since its very first Walking Cycling and Horse-Riding Assessment Review (WCHAR) in respect of this project. I wish to represent the BHS and equestrians on behalf of the project south of the Thames. Since the initial consultations and over the ensuing years, we have, on the whole, been very happy with the proposals for equestrian inclusion within this region (south of the Thames), entailing paths available by right rather than permissive paths providing much needed connectivity north and south of the A2 and west to east on both sides, including over the LTC road to the north. Immediately prior to submitting the DCO, we were informed by National Highways’ representatives that there would be no “by right” paths provided for equestrians south of the A2 between Church Road (Henhurst) and Halfpence Lane, north of Cobham. A permissive path was proposed instead. No clarification as to the terms and conditions of this permissive path were provided then or since. We were informed that it was “not possible” for the landowners/occupiers to dedicate the path as a public bridleway. From memory (I have received nothing in writing) the reasons cited for the inability to dedicate the bridleways as public were: a) Forestry England stated it was not possible to dedicate a bridleway across Crown land and b) Woodland Trust stated that land ownership meant it was too complicated to obtain a dedication BHS wrote confirming that we believe there IS legal capacity to create a public bridleway and we have explained how we believe it would be possible to achieve this. Despite asking for a response to this, none has been received. We would still welcome the opportunity to work with NH, the landowners and KCC to resolve this. The provision of this public path will provide connectivity for many equestrians south of the A2 to take advantage of the new provision north of the road and, indeed, enable those north to visit places such as Jeskyns and Ashenbank to the south of the road. A permissive path provides no future security for equestrians (or any users) and so it is imperative that all legitimate steps are taken to ensure this path remains as originally proposed, a public bridleway. Further, since the publication of the documentation on the Planning Inspectorate website, we note that the bridleway has been annotated as a “permissive Pedestrian Cycle route - new” within the 7.9 Transport Assessment, Appendix A “Plate 1.1 New provision for WCH - south of the River Thames”. To exclude equestrians altogether here would be entirely unreasonable and at odds with everything previously discussed and agreed. In the event that it is decided by the Inspector that a permissive bridleway is the only option available, then the path as mentioned above must be provided under a very carefully worded agreement between landowner (to include current and future landowners) and Kent County Council Public Rights of Way team as highways authority, irrevocable under ANY circumstances and for a term of at least 50 and preferably 99 years, in other words a public path in all but name whilst enabling some degree of flexibility of the alignment between the fixed start and end points."

Bulphan Village Community Forum
"The proposed Lower Thames Crossing will not relieve congestion as much as other proposed routes would; the proposals do not comply with carbon emission reduction targets; other original proposals would have provided additional advantages over the current proposed route."

Graham Horsler
"I feel the proposals for the crossing will cause severe damage to the environment on what is existing green belt land and add to traffic congestion in the area of Thurrock"

Thomas J Foster
"Dear Sir/Madam, In the first instant I wrote to the [email protected] They have replied and given me yhis information and told me that I should be contacting you with my questions. This is the contents of the email below that I sent to them and i'm now sending it to you as they advised me to. ************************************************************** Why is this taking such a long time, you state, “Should consent be granted, construction could start as early as 2024. The planning process is likely to take around 18 months including 6 months of examination” that is not early that would be at least mid 2024. This would mean at the earliest IF the planning should be granted then by the time you get everything sorted and in progress that would take another 6 months then construction wouldn’t start until at the earliest the beginning of 2025. Then We will be looking at around about 6 year’s minimum of construction then at the earliest the opening of the New Crossing wouldn’t be until 2031. Surely this is unacceptable, we have to look forward to another 8 or 9 years of traffic chaos in the Dartford area. It doesn’t just hit Dartford though, the A25, the A2. The A20, Blackwall Tunnel and the Woolwich Ferry ( when It’s running) are all effected. WHY is it taking so long to decide where the new crossing is going to be situated. Kind regards Thomas Foster. (REDACTED)"

Anna Louise Sparrow
"My main concern about this road is that, despite the huge cost in both taxpayers' money and environmental destruction, it will still fail in its primary purpose and traffic demands on the existing crossing will continue to exceed capacity. Any representation I make will relate to the reasons behind and contributing factors to this overriding concern."

C Stubbings
"to propose that the development proceeds a soon as possible giving due regard to the local environment but giving prime importance to the benefits to the whole country in improving transport infrastructure."

Joshua Maurel
"This is an outline of the principal submissions I, as an interested party, intend to make regarding this application. I make this representation as this is my main residence and someone who has a legal interest in the land and the surrounding areas. My concerns, before, during, on completion and following use of the new A122 Lower Thames Crossing are: depreciation in value of my property by physical factors caused by the new or altered public works; future road charges; Nuisance/personal inconvenience to the severe disruption to daily life lasting more than a year; health effects/injurious affection (of the whole of the works (Gas, Water, Highways, Water Resources Acts); change in the character of noise due to the increase in traffic: lack of noise insulation for my property, vibration causing damage to my property being in close proximity to the new road; smell/odour/fumes/smoke and work traffic to and from the site causing change of air quality/air pollution due to vehicles situated on the altered carriageway and increase in public traffic; artificial lightening/light interference caused by increase of vehicle headlights and street lighting; discharge onto the property of any solid or liquid substance; loss of view and privacy; Nuisance and personal inconvenience due to severe disruption to daily life; flood due to climate change and damage to underground tunnels; any reasonable valuation and/or legal expenses incurred by me in preparing and prosecuting a claim; a right to home loss payment where I am displaced from my dwelling."

Trevor James Sparrow
"My representation is based on the points made in my consultation responses: - traffic levels at the existing crossing will still exceed operating capacity - there is no strategy for managing the switch of traffic between crossings when one is out of action - such a strategy is impossible because the ‘nightmare’ junction at the A13/LTC does not have enough connections despite its ruinous effect on the local environment and potential for driver frustration and accidents - the A1089 was originally put in to take heavy traffic away from local roads. The LTC takes away the A13 connectivity and replaces it with a fudge - the extra capacity offered by the LTC is therefore likely to be taken up by additional vehicle journeys on what could become (to non-residents) an attractive ‘outer ring road’, entirely contradictory to the Government’s greener transport directive - the LTC road is designed to be ‘smart’, despite the growing concern about the dangers already in evidence on Smart Motorways - despite the ‘haul roads’ taking the earthmovers, the local roads will still not be able to take the additional traffic created by the workforce, deliveries, visitors, etc - the environmental impact, loss of green-belt and agricultural land, air quality, especially PM2.5 levels (to which electric vehicles are not the answer), noise and light pollution - the claimed development potential is questionable (whether gains will exceed losses) This project carries a huge price tag, not just financial but environmental and health/wellbeing. The financial cost will no doubt rise exponentially as usually happens, but taking risks on the other two elements is not acceptable."

Dickens' Country Protection Society
"The Society was formed in 1972. The Society has submitted representations during the route selection process and in response to each consultation. The congestion at the Dartford Crossing is primarily caused by constraints of traffic having to use the two tunnels. The evidence is there to see on site that the bridge is free flowing subject to build-ups caused by the reduction in the speed limit. A second bridge (Brinkerhoff Option A) would largely solve the problem. The Society notes that in the Department of Transport report on the consultation published in December 2013, Option A commanded the most support. The Parsons Brinkerhoff Report in 2009 recognised the traffic impact Option C would have on North West Kent and included Option C +. The advocates of Option C have ignored the traffic impact on North West Kent because including the cost of Option C+ or something similar would undermine the cost benefits of their preferred scheme. Much of the traffic using the Dartford Crossing is seeking to gain access to the short sea routes to continental Europe and the Channel Tunnel. The primary route for this traffic is the M20 and this has not been recognised in the design and costings of the scheme. The approach of the promoters of the Scheme has been, once the traffic is on the A2/M2 it's not our problem. The information provided regarding the noise impact in the area of approach road interchange with the A2/M2 lacks detail. The predicted noise levels in the corridor on the A2 between Cobham and Shorne raises more questions than answers. More traffic the removal of the central reservation with its difference in level and trees and elevated slip roads at the junction with the tunnel approach road and a reduction in noise levels? The proposed highway works on the section of the A2/M2 between Cobham and Shorne increasing the number of traffic lanes from eight to twelve with the loss of the central landscape strip will have a major impact on the Green Belt and the North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and resulting in the loss mature woodland. The potential impact of re-routing traffic off the M25 and into North West Kent and the effect on road network has not been properly assessed or mitigated. This includes increased congestion and resulting economic impact. Considering the environmental impact, the Society is strongly opposed to using high grade agricultural land for tree planting. It is in the national interest to use it to grow food. These proposals will also impact on the viability of agricultural holdings and damage existing open landscape. There is the potential for significant damage to the North Kent Marshes 'Ramsar' site due to ground water drainage and/or contaminated discharge. Control measures have not been defined."

George Moffat
"The redesigning of junction 29 on the M25 and the A127, how can this cope woth increased capacity."

Luddesdown Parish Council
"Luddesdown Parish Council has participated in all the many consultations run on this project and have concerns that have not been addressed in the consultation materials. Below is a summary of the concerns we have raised with National Highways throughout the design consultations:- Lack of traffic modelling on our roads - The centre of the village of Luddesdown is approximately 1.7miles from the roundabout joining the A2 at Cobham junction and is served entirely by Class C minor roads (single track) which are unlimited (national speed limit) but which are used by a large amount of NMU's. These roads join the A2 via Half Pence Lane to Cobhambury and Batts Roads. At peak times and when there are hold-ups on the A2, traffic from the A2 migrates (rat runs) through the parish either from the A2 to A227, A228 to A227 or A2 to M20 via minor roads. When the A2 is stationary (which happens not infrequently) the village and approach roads become gridlocked. During consultation National Highways have consistently declined to accept responsibility to model the effects of increased traffic to our area. Our concerns were heightened by the restriction of the A2 from 4 lanes in each direction down to 2 lanes in the later stages of design (a design change not indicated in the 'ward impact summary' consultation document). The consultation documents (heat maps) on the topics of traffic and pollution have shown the effects on the area as blank - which is also the indication that there is no effect. We (the affected residents) need to know the effect and to have it taken into account when the application is considered. Difficulty in accessing underlying data during consultation - and in understanding what exactly is proposed (as was the case for the restriction of the A2 from 4 lanes in each direction to 2 lanes in each direction at the point where the project joins the A2). The 'consultation documents' offered by National Highways came in two flavours; glossy print documents which boldly proclaim the benefits of the project and outline descriptions of the work underlying the design, and immense and detailed documents which were poorly organised, very large to download and highly technical in nature requiring specialist expertise to understand, but which mostly failed to provide answers to the questions we had. While the 'client facing' staff were most responsive to our questioning, the answers they provided in most cases either referred us to a later document that had not yet been issued or stated that information would only be provided at DCO. Absence of clear environmental impact information - In particular absence of baseline survey data or an updated PEIR. As locals, we use the area that is under consideration for this development in leisure activities and during our daily work. We are interested in how the project will change the area and how those effects are being mitigated. We would also, as global citizens, like to champion the cause of the nature and the biodiversity of the area, which we have unique experience of. Luddesdown is unique in that the parish (the longest in the borough) spans the AONB from Cobham in the north to Vigo in the south. No quantitive update on consultation or scheme objectives - While local representations are principally concerned with the traffic and pollution effects of the project, as tax payers and part of the population who are the supposed beneficiaries from the scheme; we feel a more scientific and detailed approach should be taken towards setting, assessing and monitoring the scheme objectives (in measurable and quantitative terms). With regard to consultation, there has been a complete absence of any quantitative feedback on any of the consultation responses post 2013. There was a summary of responses to the 2013 consultation but the absence of numbers in the subsequent 'you said we did' document was conspicuous."

David Robert Plant
"My concerns are over the effect on the roads at the Orsett Cock roundabout and the A13/A1014 roundabout. Also the loss of green belt land through Thurrock. It also appears the new road will not solve the Dartford Crosssing capacity issures."

Essex Area Ramblers
"The Essex Area Ramblers provided a response in September 2021 and in summary is: We are generally content that the replacement PRoWs are adequate in principle, but as there are no detailed plans at this stage, the ramblers will need to be satisfied that the new crossings have acceptable dimensions and surfacing. We are particularly concerned where crossings are shared with cyclists and horse riders and we will need to be satisfied that adequate design and segregation is achieved and need to be assured that the facilities will be constructed and not sacrificed when value engineering or cost cutting is undertaken. The Ramblers are concerned whether major road improvements, such as the Lower Thames Crossing, can lead to increased car travel and whether they are consistent with the Government’s climate commitments. As everyone is aware, Covid has had a fundamental impact on travel patterns, and could be still adjusting as society returns to a 'new normal'. For example there is likely to be less commuting and perhaps a more dispersed population as people adjust to more home working. The traffic forecasts are based on traffic data collected in 2016, which is pre- Covid. Government recognise, in their 'Transport Decarbonisation Plan', which was first published in July 2021 with a review published in July 2022. (Ref). This plan recognised that their major transport infrastructure programmes were designed before the pandemic and they want to understand how changing patterns of work,shopping and business travel might effect them, as well as their climate commitments. The Essex Area Ramblers support this and believe a review of the traffic levels and forecasts,and the impact of the planned change to electric vehicles, are necessary to ensure the scheme is relevant post Covid and is in line with the Government's climate commitments of net zero emissions by 2050. Ref: Decarbonising Transport: A Better, Greener Britain:Department for Transport: July 2021. ' 'One Year On': July 2022"

Mark Teeton
"I am interested in assessing the scheme in the following areas; Overall project programme feasibility and cost compared to similar projects around the world. As a tax payer, I want an honest assessment of time and cost from the beginning. Assessment of project risks( linked in to above) The impact of the project on traffic flow along A2, A226 and lower higham road. Mark Teeton"

Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"APPLICATION BY NATIONAL HIGHWAYS LIMITED FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE LOWER THAMES CROSSING Planning Inspectorate Reference Number: TR010032 Section 56 Planning Act 2008: Relevant Representation of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited This is the section 56 representation of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) provided in respect of National Highways' (Applicant's) application for a Development Consent Order (Order) which seeks powers to authorise the construction, operation and maintenance of the Lower Thames Crossing, being, in summary, the construction of a new A-road connecting Kent, Thurrock and Essex through a tunnel beneath the River Thames (Scheme). Network Rail is a statutory undertaker and owns, operates and maintains the majority of the rail infrastructure of Great Britain. The Book of Reference identifies 52 plots (Plots) of land over which Network Rail have rights or own or occupy. The Applicant is seeking, through compulsory purchase (Compulsory Powers), the permanent acquisition of rights over 21 plots, the temporary possession and use over 17 plots, all interests and rights over 11 plots, the acquisition of subsoil and rights with temporary possession and use of land at the surface over 2 plots, and both temporary possession and use and acquisition of rights over 1 plot. We understand that there are five key parts of the Scheme that impact on the operational railway (NR Interactions), these are summarised below, but further detail is required from the Applicant: 1 A new bridge (the Tilbury Viaduct) to carry the Lower Thames Crossing carriageway and the on and off slip ramps over the Anglia Route (Tilbury Loop railway). A permanent easement in the form of air rights will be required at the Tilbury Viaduct over the railway, and utilities diversions over and under the railway. A temporary easement will also be required in order to make provisions for crash deck, as well as, working area during the LTC construction stage. 2 A new NMU (non-motorised user) footbridge over the Anglia Route (Upminster to Greys line) at Ockendon. 3 A new and a widened bridge over the Anglia Route, also at this location there is intended to be: A. Retaining walls in close proximity to the railway; B. Utilities diversions over and under the railway; and C. Archaeological and ground works alongside the railway at footbridge location. 4 A new tunnel under the Gravesend to Higham Line (Southeast /Kent Route) line. 5 Widening M25 and new collector road (franks farm) causing an increase in the size of the bridge carrying the road over the railway. The Applicant and Network Rail are in discussions in relation to the Scheme, and Network Rail does not object to the principle of the Scheme. However, Network Rail does object to: A. Compulsory Powers being used in relation to the Plots causing the NR Interactions; and B. the Scheme resulting in additional use of, and therefore damage and increased wear and tear/maintenance issues relating to existing overbridges and level crossings. The Applicant will need to provide additional information to Network Rail about the detail of the proposed works on and over the Plots and the intended use of existing NR assets, for Network Rail to analyse: A. the full range of NR Interactions and the impacts of these NR Interactions and proposed works on and over the Plots; and B. whether or not the Scheme, and in particular, the proposed works on/over the Plots can be carried out without causing the safety of Network Rail's land being compromised. To safeguard Network Rail's interests and the safety and integrity of the operational railway, Network Rail objects as detailed above and in particular to the inclusion of the Plots in the Order and to Compulsory Powers being granted in respect of them. The Plots constitute land acquired by Network Rail for the purpose of its statutory undertaking and, accordingly, this representation is made under section 56 and sections 127 and 138 of the Planning Act 2008. Network Rail is willing to negotiate agreements with the Applicant in relation to the Plots and considers that there is no compelling case in the public interest for the Compulsory Powers and that the Secretary of State, in applying section 127 of the Planning Act 2008, cannot conclude that (without agreements in place with Network Rail to safeguard the Plots) new rights and restrictions over the Plots can be created without serious detriment to Network Rail's undertaking; no other land is available to Network Rail by which to make good the detriment. Network Rail also objects to all other compulsory powers in the Order that affect, and may be exercised in relation to, Network Rail's property and interests. In order for Network Rail to be in a position to withdraw its objection Network Rail requires: A. further information from the Applicant about the proposed works on and over the Plots; B. agreements with the Applicant regulating the manner in which rights over the Plots are acquired and the manner in which work impacting the Plots, and any other land owned by Network Rail, is carried out, including terms protecting Network Rail's statutory undertaking; C. agreement that the Compulsory Powers will not be exercised in relation to the Plots; and D. the inclusion of appropriate protective provisions in the Order for its benefit. To safeguard Network Rail's interests and the safety and integrity of the operational railway, Network Rail objects to the inclusion of the Compulsory Powers and any other powers affecting Network Rail in the Order. Network Rail requests that the Examining Authority treat Network Rail as an Interested Party for the purposes of the Examination and reserves the right to produce additional grounds of concern when further details of the Scheme and its effects on Network Rail's land are available."

Bluewater (Landsec) (Bluewater (Landsec))
"On behalf of Bluewater Shopping Centre, which is owned and managed by Landsec, I would like to make the following representations in support for the Lower Thames Crossing. To provide some context, Bluewater is one of the largest shopping centres in the UK, spanning 240 acres, with 330 stores and over 50 bars, restaurants, and cafes. Each year, between 7,000 and 10,000 individuals work at Bluewater, making us one of the largest employers in the local area and we contribute £422 million to the economy and welcome 27 million visitors each year. We have a clear vision for Bluewater which builds on what is already a thriving retail destination. Due to our unique location, in a former chalk quarry just outside of Dartford, many of Bluewater’s customers and employees require road access to get to the Centre. Much like other businesses in the area, we are impacted by the congestion at the Dartford Crossing with customers and staff struggling to get to the Centre. The Dartford Crossing was designed to take 135,000 vehicles a day, but it is now operating well over capacity, as it is regularly used by more than 150,000. The Crossing cannot keep up with the increasing demand and the huge number of vehicles that make use of it each day. The resulting congestion damages both the economy and environment and needs to be addressed. The Lower Thames Crossing will make it easier and more energy efficient to travel between Kent and Essex and will benefit Bluewater in particular by providing a new route for customers from across the Thames to reach us, increasing our footfall and allowing more individuals to benefit from the social value the Centre adds to the wider community. It will also relieve congestion at the Dartford Crossing, which will free up space on the road network around the shopping centre, creating an even more pleasant customer experience. Our centre is particular busy during weekend hours and bank holidays, so we welcome the desire to ease congestion on the Dartford Crossing, improve journeys across the region, and create a new, reliable, connection to jobs. We welcome the development of the Lower Thames Crossing and believe it could have a transformative impact on the prosperity and convenience of the local area. We would welcome further opportunities to engage with this process as it progresses."

Forestry Commission
"We wish to Register as an “Interested party” The Forestry Commission is a Statutory Party where NSIP applications are likely to affect the protection or expansion of forests and woodlands which we class for this NSIP. The Forestry Commission has completed a statement of common ground with National Highways. This highlights were agreement has been reached as well as where a number of areas have not been agreed. Below is the outline of the principal submissions the Forestry Commission intend to make: 1. Ancient woodlands, ancient trees and veteran trees are irreplaceable habitats. We would like to give representation on the direct and indirect impacts on Ancient Woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees connected to this project. 2. Existing trees should be retained wherever possible, and opportunities should be taken to incorporate trees into the development. We would like to give representation on trees not covered in the ancient woodland category above that could be affected by the project. 3. Biodiversity Net Gain: We would like to give representation on proposed planting areas and other activities identified in this project."

Joanna Haigh
"The UK has a legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Road transport is now the economic sector which contributes most to these and action needs to be taken on reducing it. The Lower Thames Crossing will only increase traffic, and carbon emissions, and is thus illegal as well as morally reprehensible."

Kate Soper
"The plans for the LTC fly in the face of UK commitments on climate change and the reduction of carbon emissions. They are estimated to add 6.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. They are opposed by almost all the relevant councils. They are backward-looking, being committed to an extension of the car culture at a time when all progressive and smart thinking on urban renewal is looking to provide healthier and less noisy, dangerous, polluting and spatially dominating modes of transport. Those who have any serious insight on the future will not now be advocating road extensions."

Kerstin Oloff
"as a researcher of environment and society, I am opposed to another new road project – the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), a proposed six-lane, 22-kilometre motorway with a tunnel under the Thames near Gravesend – that would be every bit as damaging as the Silvertown Tunnel in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. The project is opposed by the Thames Crossing Action Group and most of the councils in the area. National Highways, the agency responsible for the LTC, currently estimate that it would add 6.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (mtCO2e) during construction and use. The LTC is the largest project envisaged in part 2 of the government’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS2) for 2020-25. Transport for Quality of Life have shown that the plans, overall, will add 20 mtCO2e per year to transport sector emissions – while, to meet climate targets, they need to go down by 167 mtCO2e per year. Many thanks, Dr Kerstin Oloff"

Peter Somerville
"The main points that I would like to make are: The Lower Thames Crossing will result in increased travel by road when what is needed now and in the future is a modal shift away from private vehicle use toward public transport and active travel generally. The Crossing will result in a large increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which is incompatible with the need to reduce transport emissions in line with the government's net zero policy. The Crossing is a waste of public money and resources. Its costs far outweigh any benefits it might bring."

Robin Beard
"While I am generally in favour of the Lower Thames Crossing, I do have some major reservations about the design that Highways England have submitted to you... because I think that the selected route is clearly worse than a nearby alternative, and that as a result the proposed junction at Orsett will be far more destructive, expensive, and time-consuming to build than it would need to be, if only the route was changed. At its current location, the design of the Orsett junction is severely constrained by the pre-existing road network, and so Highways England have been forced to propose a spaghetti of mile-long link roads, in an effort to try and squeeze the junction into the space available. This over-complicated design (featuring countless bridges, and even some tunnels) not only places a heavy burden on the taxpayer, the end result might actually be dangerous for the drivers who will ultimately have to use it. Furthermore, to make room for this sprawling junction, over a dozen houses will be demolished in and around Orsett, including three Grade II listed buildings – while numerous other homes will be left perilously close to the road, several of them literally in the shadow of the junction. At least a dozen electricity pylons will need to be demolished and replaced, too... What makes all this so egregious is the fact that there is a big empty field literally just two miles to the East, where a far simpler junction could be built more quickly at a fraction of the cost, without having to demolish any houses or listed buildings, and where no more than two pylons would need to be removed, perhaps less! This hypothetical junction would connect to the A13 in the same way as Highways England's proposal, but with a much smaller footprint; and while it would not connect to the A1089, that might actually be a blessing in disguise... And there's more! To minimise the flood risk where the current design crosses the Mardyke River, Highways England has used embankments and viaducts – but they are all hundreds of metres long, since their route runs right across the middle of Orsett Fen. Whereas, if the road approached from the East (as I suggest), then it could cross the Mardyke's floodplain at its narrowest point, halving the required length of those embankments and viaducts... Naturally, the proposed 'East-facing' junction at Orsett would benefit drivers more if it was sited further to the East; but when I told Highways England this, in 2018, they said that they lacked the authority to change the route, and they advised me to wait until they submitted their proposal to the Planning Inspectorate – so, here I am. I do also have concerns regarding the complexity of the junction with the A2, South of the river, as well as with the Tilbury junction (or lack thereof)... but it is the design and location of the Orsett junction that I object to most strongly."

Canterbury City Council
"We received Notice (under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008) that the above DCO application has now been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate This letter contains the representations of Canterbury City Council. We consider the proposed Lower Thames Crossing will improve journey times considerably between east Kent, including Canterbury, and areas north of the Thames, including the East Midlands and north of the country. This will in turn make east Kent more accessible to a range of new development and economic investment possibilities. In this sense we regard the Lower Thames Crossing as an important opportunity to facilitate future growth, and improve productivity and resilience for businesses in the east Kent economy. However, it is the view of the council that the new crossing must be accompanied by improvements to the A2/M2 corridor, otherwise the beneficial effects of the new crossing will not be realised. Moreover, without these related improvements at existing pinch points on the M2/A2 corridor, the potential traffic impacts could be detrimental to the economic prospects of east Kent. Indeed, National Highways has already highlighted these existing capacity issues as a constraint to future development in the area through work on current and emerging local plans along the corridor. The need for these road network improvements has already been identified as necessary to support the east Kent growth agenda and as such is a key component of the East Kent Growth Framework (2018) - the area’s investment plan. See link: [Redacted] The South East radial area study carried out by Transport for the South East identifies, as an opportunity: “Integration of the Lower Thames Crossing and a long-term solution to Operation Stack as well as M2/M20 junction improvements and other initiatives aimed at improving highway access to Dover and Folkestone” [Redacted] Without these improvements the existing capacity issues at Brenley Corner (M2, J7) will be exacerbated by the additional traffic generated by the new crossing. The A2, unless improved between Canterbury and Dover, would have a significant increase in traffic which would potentially lead to drivers seeking less suitable alternative routes through country roads and more traffic routing through Canterbury, where there are existing safety issues with stacking back on the A2. We would urge these be recognised in parallel with the construction of the Crossing. In this regard, we strongly support the Objectives of the Kent Local Transport Plan 4: Delivering Growth without Gridlock 2016–2031, which seeks the bifurcation of Dover port traffic. Traffic needs to be split between the M20/A20 and M2/A2 routes. The Local Transport Plan sets out that: “To deliver bifurcation, the following upgrades are required: • M2 Junction 7 (Brenley Corner) improvements to improve capacity and provide free-flow between the M2 and A2. • Dualling sections of single carriageway on the A2 north of Dover along Jubilee Way to Whitfield and near Lydden. • M20 Junction 7 improvements to provide ease of access between the A249 and M20. • M2 Junction 5 Stockbury improvements to provide free-flow between the M2 and A249 (in progress). • Increased capacity on M2 Junction 4 – 7”. This integrated package of improvements is also supported by both the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership (KMEP) and the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP), which have emphasised the need for the wider network improvements particularly the M2 Junction 7 Brenley Corner, and dualling of the A2 from Lydden to Dover. We would ask that you take into account our representations to the Consultation."

Graham Pike
"I am very pleased with the consultation materials provided and the clarity on the project itself."

James Harkins
"This scheme is not the best available in that being road based will create too much NEE It should be rail based with no pollution at the point of use"

Mrs Fay Plumb
"I am convinced that it will not provide value for money and that Ministers are being mislead as the figures they will be presented with are two years out of date. It is an ill-conceived scheme because: Aspects of the original plans have been removed but still present costs are estimated to be £10bn+ - it will not provide value for money. It will not solve the problems at the Dartford crossing. Neither will it improve journeys for traffic travelling to the North of England. However, it will lead to an increase in demand of traffic crossing the Thames. The scheme lacks forethought about improving public transport. Carbon emissions will increase (estimate of 6.6 million tonnes). However, the technology to cut these emissions through carbon capture does not exist yet NH’s reports are based on this fact. The area will suffer more air and noise pollution without even meeting WHO-10's levels for PM2.5. Thurrock wards include some which are in the bottom 10% of the country in respect of health. It lacks connections and when there are incidents, local roads will be severely impacted. The already emergency services will also be stretched to cope. It will not help local businesses. National Highways proclaimed that the proposed road would 'play a vital role in connecting communities and bringing people closer to jobs and leisure opportunities' the proposed scheme places a greater burden on Thurrock people and businesses as local access to the proposed LTC is immensely limited. This is at odds with the Government's commitment to spread opportunity more equally. Thousands of acres of farmland will be lost (some it prime green belt) and being destroyed threatening food security. Woodlands (some ancient with veteran trees) will be destroyed during and affected by pollution afterwards. In turn this loss will have a disastrous affect on wildlife and habitats which includes protect ted species. Residents will have to tolerate air, noise and light pollution during construction in addition to being restricted on routes around the borough. This will have an adverse affect for local businesses."

Stephen Metcalfe
"As Member of Parliament for South Basildon and East Thurrock I wish to make representations in person on a number of issues of great concern to my constituents, including but not limited to: Ability of the Lower Thames Crossing to actually relieve catastrophic congestion in Thurrock when the Dartford Crossing Fails. The Lack of connectivity of the Lower Thames Crossing to the existing road network, particularly in regard to connection to Tilbury port and the intersection with the A13/A1089. Challenges to the Traffic modelling which is based on numbers collected in 2016 prior to the many recent developments that have taken place. The overall environmental impact of the project and the impact on air quality. To raise concerns about the impact construction will have on the lives of those living in the local area. And more... To exam the claim that the LTC will bring economic development to Thurrock. Challenge the Cost/Benefit Ratio in light of rising construction cost. Challenge the LTC as being a value for Money project"

Fraser Massey
"Concern and opposition to the Lower Thames Crossing for some of the following reasons:- Cost of the project Long running timescale of the project Impact on local health Impact on air quaility Impact on environment and animals Impact on local road network Loss of greenbelt Does not solve the problem at Dartford in enough of the long term"

Gary Flowers
"Impact on local roads and lanes with movement of construction vehicles. Also the impact on local housing prices."

Irene Hamilton
"There is no evidence that this link road will have any benefits for this area. I live in South Ockendon and the impact this will have on the environment is criminal! The air pollution, the destruction of any remaining wildlife and the increase of traffic to the area is untenable! This totally contravenes any agreements by this Government, taken at various international conferences on climate change. Then there is the enormous cost of building this road, at a time when we are all being asked to tighten our belts. Taxpayers money should be used to improve public transport and protect nature and our land for future generations . If this road is built the people of Ockendon will be in a triangle of the worst pollution being surrounded by the M25 the A13 and this new link road… this will put a further strain on health services. I have heard the argument about electric vehicles… how many people will be able to afford them before 2030 ( the limited few years to deal with rising CO2 levels, never mind the cost of the environmental damage in the amount of raw materials needed to build this road! I urge the planners to halt this whole idea…I don’t want it in my back yard… or anyone else’s! [Redacted]."

Kent Countryside Access Forum
"The Kent Countryside Access Forum is a statutory body which advises Councils and other organisations on matters concerning Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and Green Spaces. The Forum represents the interests of all non-motorised users (NMU) - walkers, cyclists, horse riders and carriage drivers, and people with disabilities. (Motorised Users are also included where appropriate). Forum members have been reasonably happy about provision of paths for NMU so far, but there are some concerns. All NMU's, including horse riders need to be included on paths and bridges, unless there is a sound reason to exclude them. All the new paths must be permanent Public Rights of Way or the equivalent, 'Permissive' paths can too easily be removed, making unacceptable breaks in the network. Restricted Byway would be the ideal status - it is unlikely that there will be more than a very few Horse-drawn vehicles, but this status ensures that there are no barriers to vehicles for disabled people. Bridleways would be acceptable as allowing walkers, cyclists and ridden horses. Connections to paths and lanes outside the Development Area are very important, to allow users access to the new paths. There is also an opportunity for new paths in the areas of proposed Compensation Land at Burham and Blue Bell Hill, and for connections to existing PRoW in those areas."

Simon Barber
"I am opposing the Lower Thames River Crossing on the following grounds and the project would: -Increase traffic growth leading to more CO2 emissions, plus construction emissions -Not solve Dartford crossing as claimed by National Highways -Impact on the Kent downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty -Increase both air and noise pollution which will have direct and indirect impacts on humans and endangered species -Increase severance of local communities -Cost taxpayers at least &10 billion Meanwhile, however, a new proposal had been promoted by New Lower Thames Transport Tunnel organisation [redacted] for a rail crossing whereby two all-purpose railway tracks are envisaged which I am very much in favour. That railway will enable fast freight links to the East Coast ports and the Channel Tunnel bypassing Central London. The tunnel will also be a major source of geothermal energy, adding to local power capacity. The tracks will also be built to HS1 standards."

Dave Walker
"I'm opposing the proposed new Thames Crossing. I don't believe it will solve the current problems suffered due to the Dartford Crossing, and will have various negative impacts: There's no provision for active travel across the river. It does nothing to move travel to public transport, which is what is needed. The new crossing will only induce new demand. There will be a huge increase in carbon emissions. It will cost too much. There will be an unacceptable impact on local communities during the build and operation. It will destroy and impact woodland (including ancient woodland), trees (including ancient trees), hedgerows, and much needed green belt. There will be a devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, including protected species. There will be an increase in air and noise pollution. Overall, I don't believe it meets the scheme objectives."

James Wiggins
"the provision of also upgrading junction 3 on the M2 that connects to the A229 for access for coast bound traffic onto the M20 for Folkstone & Dover Tunnel & Ferry ports. At Peak times this is already snarled up with queues EASTBOUND half way up the Hill on the M2 to get off at Junction 3. This is bound to get heavier once the lower thames Tunnel is in place."

Keith Tomlins
"I am wishing to represent the interests of cyclists and other users of sustainable low carbon transport. Currently, the plans seem to only allow users of vehicles (cars, lorries etc) to use the lower Thames Crossing and these consume a lot of energy. For example, a car weighing say 1500kg is being used to transport one person weighting say 70kg. If the lower thames crossing route can include a cycle and pedestrian lane so that cargo bikes and other bikes can cross from Gravesend to Tilbury, with will support local sustainable businesses and transactions north and south of the river. Such cycle routes are already alongside the M2 motorway so I believe there should be no safety or environmental concerns by including a cycle route in the tunnel alongside the route for motor vehicles."

Strutt & Parker on behalf of Seventyholds Ltd
"Our Client, Seventyholds Ltd, is impacted by the LTC proposals, as submitted as part of this DCO application. We have and are still in ongoing discussions with Highways representatives about our clients issues/objections to said proposals. At this moment in time our clients comments on these can be summarised as follows; Clients Land at Hoford Road: Whilst our client does not presently have any development intentions for this site it is well placed to assist with offsetting their development plans elsewhere on the estate for BNG purposes. Furthermore, most of this land is classed under the Agricultural Land Classification system as Grade 2. These land types are designated in Government policy as the “best and most versatile” land and afforded protection as such. The proposed acquisition will take this land out of production of high yielding crops. On this basis they object to the proposed acquisition of the whole parcel of land. Clients Land at Stanford Road: We have informed National Highways that our client has advanced development proposals for this land and have provided evidentiary plans to them on a confidential basis to demonstrate this. Aspiration for commercial development on this site, for employment uses, is impacted by current LTC plans which propose to place a Gas Substation in the centre of the proposed development. We have been waiting since October 2021 for responses from Cadent Gas and National Highways on requests for design changes with regards to this Gas Substation and as such our client wishes to raise a holding objection to the plans as they are currently. Our clients preference is for the substation not to be placed on their land. Alternatively, should this not prove possible, they have asked that the Substation be moved to the Eastern end of the plot, without impeding in anyway the proposed roundabout junction for the wider development proposals in the area, so as to minimise the impact on the layout of the entire site. Furthermore, we have asked that provision be made to provide east to west transit/access (which should be sufficient width for HGV’s) across it to avoid severance. Despite requests we are yet to be provided information on the maximum required space to house the compound, what would be placed on and under this land and as a result whether there would be any development restrictions near the compound. Clients Land in Orsett: This block of land is under a promotion agreement with a developer who is currently promoting the site through the local plan. Detailed drawings of the proposed development have been produced and current projections are to bring it forward for development in 2025/2026, which could conflict with LTC construction timescales. Clients Land at Blackshots Lane: National Highways have confirmed that the utility works proposed on our clients land are for a temporary foul water outlet to serve a compound to the North of the land. We understand that this pipeline is subject to detailed design as to diameter and location and National Highways have confirmed that this “asset” is promoted as temporary and will be removed. Our client needs to be provided with a written assurance to this effect. [Redacted] (of Strutt and Parker) & [Redacted] (of Frazer Halls Associates) On behalf of our mutual client Seventyholds Ltd"

William Hamilton
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Mandy Martin
"I would like to find out more as thi scheme will affect the lives of many of the local residents for ever. It will not solve the issue of the incomplete M25. I would like to know more about the dumping of waste material to make a park in Kent side . And to heighten the land between higham and gravesend ."

Michael John Saunders
"Dear Project Team, The concerns I have with Lower Thames Crossing project are as follows: ~ Pollution, especially with regard to the Government's Environment Act and its stated intention of clamping down on pollution. ~ The unsuitability of the proposed siting for the Crossing brought about by the enormous changes which have occurred in the borough since the scheme was first broached. ~ The spiralling costs costs of the scheme, not least through inflation and the country's present financial situation, especially when there is a cheaper and better alternative to be had. ~ The devastating effect it will have on Thurrock and its Green Belt, it has been said that this road will 'drive a wedge between the borough'. Moreover, it will not be of any benefit to Thurrock and will inflict a whole host of detrimental effects on its residents. ~ Gareth Davies, Head of the National Audit Office has recently stated his concerns regarding the scarcity of farmland in the country which supplies only 46% of our food following Brexit and our burgeoning population. ~"

David Smith
"The proposed new crossing will destroy the air quality for all residents of the area in which it runs, it is well documented that the air pollution in high traffic areas is exceeds safe levels so the problem will just be expanded. During the build the noise from machinery will be going on from early morning until 22.00 at night, it cannot be allowed to destroy people’s mental health in this way. Both sides of the river many acres countryside will be destroyed for the complex roads required to move the traffic to and from the tunnel. The cost has rocketed by over 2 billion pounds over its initial estimate and no building has begun as yet, this will be like another HS2 where the real cost & build time frame is vastly different to estimated."

Tony Starns
"The project would: increase traffic growth leading to more carbon emissions, and combined with the construction emissions (see below), the total carbon emissions from the scheme would be at least 6.6 million tonnes over its lifetime making this the biggest emitting scheme ever proposed (7.3.37 of the Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report); increase emissions from its construction by around an additional 2 million tonnes (at least, as National Highways are obscuring the real total with offsetting schemes), all within the critical fourth carbon budget when we need to achieve 68% reductions in UK carbon emissions by 2030 under our legally binding commitments under the Paris Agreement; not solve the congestion at the Dartford Crossing, as claimed by National Highways. The Dartford Crossing would be still be over capacity if the LTC were built. So the LTC fails to meet its own objectives. would impact on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its setting; increase air pollution and noise pollution which will have direct and indirect impacts on humans, the AONB, SACs, SSSI and endangered species; increase severance of local communities and the rights of way network. cost taxpayers at least £10 billion when the country cannot afford this. not be good value for money with a benefit-cost-ratio (BCR) of only 1.22 (meaning for every £1 spent, there will only be £1.22 of economic benefits) so is "Low" value for money according to government guidelines."

Ali Parsons
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Alison Wingfield
"It really concerns me when any future and further building across the country has and is not taking into any consideration, wildlife and the distraction of habitat in itself. Improving public transport with affordable fares, reducing road usage and emissions of all road users. Have more stringent implications on picking up vehicles that are emitting toxic fumes and remove from the roads. Help all organisations to improve and sustain all animal and plant life and biodiversity to keep our planet alive. Ensure all environmental issues regarding nature and wildlife are taught in every school as so many people of school age and some parents show no respect for nature and our environment. More education in general about recycling has to be a priority. Back to tunnels:- A definately NO to anymore tunnels and destruction of our natural world. It’s about time governments stopped looking at money as the only entity of our future, economy doesn’t just mean lining the pockets of those who don’t live in the real world, they need to come down snd back some decades and bring in Apprenticeships straight out of school and get people into work what ever interest they have and stop just giving out benefits especially without going through training even if it means them joining up in the forces to gain a career and not just create families before they have contributed to the State but taking all the benefit from it. Just seems government are frightened of putting their foot down and getting the country working again and not lazing about as a normal way of life."

Andrew Cox
"I have serious concerns regarding the Lower Thames Crossing: it will cause yet more damage to already hard pressed wildlife via habitat destruction, noise & pollution. Intended to ease traffic congestion, it's only effect will be to increase traffic & the associated emissions. Additionally, the remotness & tranquillity of the area affected will be destroyed: few such places are left in this part of Essex."

Angela Davy
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Angela Lewington
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Just one small development near my house has resulted in no hedgehogs visiting my garden for two years. This is one SMALL development. Think of the damage to habitats on a proposal of this scale."

Belinda Burns
"I believe that this work will break laws of Co2 emissions and be potentially harmful to the environment and in particular wildlife. I am very concerned that we as human beings think we have the right to take away habitats of other living creature's as and when it suits us. I realise the volume of traffic is constantly increasing and must be addressed but its always at the expense of wildlife that we make 'improvements' without any attempts to protect them."

Carole Wingrove
"I have great concerns re loss if wildlife. Many species will lose habitat and emissions from use will cause further harm to our environment"

Catherine Waterhouse
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites.   Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects.   Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Christine Burden
"I am horrified by the devastation that this proposal will wreak on south Essex. Wildlife will be irreparably damaged as SSSIs are destroyed or severely affected and biodiversity will be diminished. Vast amounts of new traffic will be brought to the area, increasing pollution which will adversely affect both the human and wildlife populations. [Redacted] I am particularly concerned for anyone with respiratory problems living close to the proposes new roads. The cost of these developments for outweighs any benefit they may bring."

Colin Horwood
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity."

Colin Lambert
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces"

Dean Bradbrook
"I am looking to register myself as an interested party. I am doing so because I live very close to both the final road and the potential compound and its entrance which is very close to my property on (REDACTED) I am also doing this because it’s a chance I will be finally listened to. I have made various attempts to speak to people at HE about my concerns which are not getting me the answers I want. Staff there is constantly turning over and my problems not passed on to new staff and being addressed, and people not getting back to us. I have severe concerns for my health/welfare and everyday life if I am to have a constant stream of lorries using the land adjacent to my property. The boundary lines more or less circle 75% of the properties of (REDACTED). I have raised this issue a number of times now and am still to have a thorough answer. My concerns were raised also during the consultation and there has been a lack of some information even getting to me."

Derek Kortlandt
"This project will cause immense environmental damage. Despite mitigation measures, there will be loss of habitat, disturbance to insect life, birds, mammals etc. In addition there will be a loss of wildness as we create yet another managed space. Further the new road will attract more traffic. This goes against announced goals to combat climate change. We need to take the climate crisis seriously That means doing without major works like the proposed new road. The last thing we need is more concrete"

Francesca Burke
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Helen Wood
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Hellen Brown
"I have serious concerns about the impact that the new crossing will have on wildlife and habitat. Water voles, pollinators, increased light pollution and its affect on breeding patterns etc. once we loose these things - that’s it ! We need population control of the human species- building more roads and crossings and tunnels is not the answer - one day soon you will just need more and more as the human numbers continue to accumulate. Don’t go ahead with this development - look at the bigger picture. Control human numbers not increase road networks."

Ian Cotgrove
"We are in a climate and environmental emergency and this proposal is in direct conflict to the direction we need to be taking. Specifically 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Jacqueline Turner
"I should like to bring to the attention of the planning inspector the following . The unsure nature of the lower Thames implementation staff when attempting to discuss details of what and where and how implementation will be carried out. highways state one thing only to do the opposite it is frustrating to say the least and it has lead to many land owners who will be effected by the project not trusting a word said or a plan printed none of what is said and printed is what seems to be planned. Surly at this stage of the overall plan for the LTC highways should have a plan and should be working to that blue print but that is not the case at all it is becoming a farce it really is."

Jacqui Shannon
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure wildlife and the spaces they live. Please consider the effects the lower Thames crossing will have on wildlife and the environment especially as I don’t believe an additional crossing is warranted. The dartford crossing and tunnel is sufficient. Thank you"

James Stewart-Evans
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Jane Frances Cross
"I am worried that yet another major road in Essex through an area if wildlife will definitely be damaging to the air quality and wildlife of the local and wider area. It is not frivolous or stupid to be concerned about these issues as they affect us all, especially in view of pollution and climate change."

Jessica Alborough
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. + Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. + Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. + Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. + Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Jill Bruce
"I have serious concerns about the impact of the proposed Thames crossing on wildlife and habitats in Essex, including: Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. It is crucially important that we now minimise all CO2 emissions as we have already reached 1.2C warming, and going over 1.5C warming makes tipping points such as the ice sheet sliding off Greenland raising global sea levels by 7 metres a very real possibility. I believe that would make this crossing irrelevant"

Joanna Harmsworth
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Joanne Standing
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

John Camp
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

John Fox
"Totally against LTC"

Julie Harris
"To whom it may concern, 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Yours sincerely Julie Harris"

Karin Munro
"I am concerned that important habitat for a range of flora and fauna will be forever lost by continuing with the proposed work. In the long term, do we really need another tunnel?"

Karla Ann Bohn
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. - Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. - Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. - Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. - Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Kathleen Jolly
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Lisa Rollisson
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Logistics UK
"Logistics UK is one of Britain’s largest business groups and the only one providing a voice for the entirety of the UK’s logistics sector. Our role, on behalf of over 18,000 members, is to enhance the safety, efficiency and sustainability of freight movement throughout the supply chain, across all transport modes. Logistics UK members operate over 200,000 goods vehicles - almost half the UK fleet - and some one million liveried vans. In addition, they consign over 90 per cent of the freight moved by rail and over 70 per cent of sea and air freight. Logistics UK strongly supports the construction of the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC). Logistics UK has consistently campaigned for the LTC which will provide the much-needed resilience in the SRN by facilitating strategic traffic and helping alleviate the congestion challenges at the Dartford Crossing. Currently, if there is a closure of the Dartford Crossing, there are a limited number of alternative routes, that are suitable for freight traffic. The closest crossing, the Blackwall Tunnel, is itself heavily congested at peak times and is not designed to carry strategic traffic. It also has a low height limit, so taller HGVs are forced to utilise the M25 via Heathrow. Logistics UK believes it is vital that the Lower Thames Crossing is constructed and open to traffic as soon as possible. Logistics UK wants to make it clear that whilst it supports the need for an additional river crossing it is vital that the scheme incentivises freight to use the route by pricing it accordingly, the charging infrastructure is interlinked to other UK systems to cut down on bureaucracy, the route provides professional drivers with access to rest facilities along the route and the crossing connects to rail, sea and air transport hubs."

Louise Ismail
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Luke Klein
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces"

Malcolm Baber
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Melanie Waddoups
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. - Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. - Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. - Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. - Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Mrs Vivien King
"This project of building these new tunnels will effect the air quality of this area, so will push up c20 emissions that I thoughts the government were meant to be reducing! Even more traffic in this area, already get bad hold ups because of the QE 2 bridge, A 13, and the M 25. My next worry is the wildlife and habitats of all the areas around this. Loosing home, feeding places and surrounding of ancient woodland, extra noises as if we haven’t got enough. Lighting of all this will disturb wildlife and upset the balance of everything for them. This will also loose reptiles,rare insects, water voles and who knows what. The countryside suffers greatly to which it can NEVER be replaced. Our area is already one big mass of roads, and industrial areas our air quality is already bad, our noise levels are terrible, peace and tranquility is NOT something we have anymore. It would be even worse and for those of us that cannot move away we have to put up with it, by no fault of our own. I cannot understand why this is still going on, it breaks our hearts that this will NOT benefit our area even though we are being told it will with jobs etc, but when it is built they will have no jobs. If all these people who choice to only see the good of this crossing, perhaps you would like to live here and put up with it. We won’t be able to sit in our gardens with our children and Grandchildren because of noise and pollution STOP RUINING OUR LIVES AND WILDLIFE NOW!!!!"

Natasha Mound
"The cumulative impacts from this scheme in terms of biodiversity loss, habitat damage, increased noise, associated development and road lighting will have a serious detrimental impact on the south Essex landscape. The location of the tunnel portal to the north of the crossing (and, in particular, the potential works area associated with the tunnel portal) will destroy habitats of importance for protected water voles, reptiles and rare invertebrates. Overall, the new road will have a serious detrimental impact on the south Essex landscape. It will result in loss or damage to important habitats and fragmentation of the habitats that remain, with accompanying impacts on protected and priority species. The cumulative impacts of biodiversity loss, habitat damage, noise, road lighting and the visual intrusion of ‘man-made’ infrastructure will combine to reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity."

Olga Ruocco Daley
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Paul King
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces"

Richard Chew
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Sandra Devine
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Sharmin Barton
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Further more with projects like this there seems to be no mitigating circumstances. It's extremely discerning."

Sheena Booth
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. That the road if built will reach capacity quicker than anticipated and require yet more precious countryside to be swallowed up in favour of road transport"

Sue Clark
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Sue Cook
"I have serious concerns about the effect of this possible development on the wildlife and habitat in Essex. The South East and particularly south east Essex is already over developed and over populated. This development will generate even more traffic and CO2 emission pollution which is in direct conflict with the Government’s target of achieving net zero by 2050. It will also bring biodiversity loss, fragmentation of habitat, increase in noise and lighting further disturbing wildlife and associated and future development will put additional pressure on wildlife and already diminishing wild spaces."

Sue Doidge
"So much wildlife is being killed and Habitat lost due to 'Progress' . I do not agree with the Lower Thames Crossing,"

Sue Parnwell
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Susan Mayes
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Susan Mayes"

Toni Stacey
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces"

Trudi Needham
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

United Kingdom Oil Pipelines Ltd c/o British Pipeline Agency
"There is a high pressure fuel pipeline that BPA maintains on behalf of UKOP, that is located within the very north end of the application boundary, and for which BPA needs to be consulted on all works to ensure the safety of the pipeline."

West Kent Badger Group
"West Kent Badger Group is affiliated to the national Badger Trust. The group aims to protect badgers and promote their welfare across West Kent. For more information visit [Redacted] Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The badger is also listed under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Undertaking any activity which could result in damage to a badger sett or disturbance to any occupying badger may constitute an offence. Natural England may issue licences to disturb or close badger setts, but this is a last resort and must be done with great care. WKBG has several concerns about the proposals submitted. These can be summarised as: • The impact on badgers is huge and needs to be very carefully considered. • The areas were last surveyed for badgers in March 2020. The sites should be surveyed, and mitigation proposed, no more than 12 months before construction starts. • The surveys did not include the extension of order limits in 2022. These new areas need to be surveyed. • Some landowners refused access to surveyors and in some locations dense vegetation prevented a full survey, so the survey data is not complete • The assessment on badger clan territory is not sufficient given the scale of the impact, more work is required on clan boundaries. Bait marking has been insufficient. • It has not been established when the outlier, subsidiary and annex setts are used throughout the year. Therefore, the applicant is unable to say that closing any of these setts will not harm badgers. • The proposed mitigation for some setts is unworkable. The proposed relocation of one sett is unviable. Some setts that are not planned for closure will not be viable • WKBG has good local knowledge about badgers and their habitat. This should be considered when proposing mitigation. • Badgers are nocturnal. No account has been made for disturbance from night-time construction: noise, vibration and bright lights • The exclusion zones need to be reconsidered – they are insufficient in some cases • Habitat connectivity and fragmentation needs to be considered • Further detail should be provided on the green bridges. Thong Lane South green bridge seems to end at of what will be a busy road – how would wildlife safely cross? • Given the extensive loss of foraging habitat during construction, little consideration has been given to where foraging would take place while construction is underway • There will be increased levels of traffic on local roads. The impact of this on badgers and other wildlife has not been considered. Additional mitigation measures within and outside of the development boundary may be required. • Some of the mitigation measures are likely to increase the number badgers crossing roads, this needs careful consideration. • The A122 will increase pollution in the area. No assessment has been made on the impact this will have on badgers. • Overall, the applicant has failed to provide enough information and mitigation measures to demonstrate that badgers will not be harmed as a result of the new crossing."

Angela Kurton
"This is a huge infrastructure project which will cause significant environmental harm. We are now in an era where biodiversity is at huge risk. Nature is being eroded by individual projects like this one, being undertaken across this country, and also in every other country on the planet. Nature in the UK can no longer absorb the level of harm being imposed on it. In summary, my concerns are: Biodiversity loss Damage to and fragmentation of habitats Damage to and fragmentation of ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting and its many harmful impacts on wildlife. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions. The carbon emissions involved in the programme itself followed by emissions caused by the extra traffic generated. The planet cannot absorb more greenhouse gas emissions. We need to move towards net zero, not away from it. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Regards Angela Kurton"

Anna Brown
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Autumn Worboys
"Grave concerns about the detrimental impact it will have on an already struggling wildlife and the significant increase in CO2."

Badger Trust
"Badger Trust exists to promote and enhance the welfare, conservation and protection of badgers, their setts, and their habitats. We are the leading voice for badgers in England and Wales, with a network of around 50 local voluntary badger groups, and supported by thousands of supporters and followers. Badger Trust provides expert advice on all badger issues and works closely with the government, police, and other conservation organisations. We use all lawful means to campaign for the improved protection of badgers and are a member of Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW), Wildlife and Countryside Link and are represented on the UK Badger Persecution Priority Delivery Group of the National Wildlife Crime Unit. "Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The badger is also listed under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Undertaking any activity which could result in damage to a badger sett or disturbance to any occupying badger may constitute an offence. Natural England may issue licences to disturb or close badger setts, but this is a last resort and must be done with great care. Badger Trust has numerous concerns about the proposals submitted, summarised as follows: There is a huge impact on badgers and this must therefore be carefully considered and managed. The badger surveys are all out of date, having been conducted between 2016 and 2020. The sites should be surveyed, and mitigation proposed, no more than 12 months before consideration is given to approving construction. The surveys did not include the entire area which will be affected by this scheme. Some landowners refused access to surveyors and in some locations, dense vegetation prevented a full survey, so the survey data is not complete. The assessment of badger clan territories is not sufficient given the scale of the impact, more work is required on clan boundaries. Bait marking has been insufficient. It has not been established when the outlier, subsidiary and annex setts are used throughout the year. Therefore, the applicant is unable to say that closing any of these setts will not harm badgers. The proposed mitigation for some setts is unworkable. Some proposed relocations are likely to be unviable, and some retained setts will be made unviable by the proposed works. Badgers are nocturnal. No account has been made for disturbance from night-time construction: noise, vibration and bright lights. The exclusion zones need to be reconsidered – they are insufficient in some cases. Habitat connectivity and fragmentation need to be considered and is something we consider vital."

Bailey Tait
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Barry West
"Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Bill Stallard
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

C Fenwick
"We don't need another tunnel we need fewer vehicles on the road. There will be biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects as illustrated by the many other developments around the world Further damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. We see so many dead animals on the roads, as they try to use their routes for breeding, feeding and travelling. Continuing increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. We no longer see the stars we used to see. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces, where does it end? We're supposed to be doing the opposite of this proposal."

Charlotte Hall
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Chloe O'Donnell
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites; - Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects; - Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity; - Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050; - Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Daniel Higgs
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Debra Barrell
"I am an Ongar councillor why do we need this when people cannot afford to run there cars, this money could be spent on more important things."

Emily McParland
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. - Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. - Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. - Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. - Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Essex Chambers of Commerce & Industry Ltd
"Proposed Third Lower Thames Crossing I am writing as Chief Executive of Essex Chambers of Commerce, the county’s leading business organisation. Our membership ranges from sole traders and SME’s through to national and international companies covering all spectrums of business activity. Much of our member’s work will involve day to day travel whether they are a manufacturer delivering finished goods, a supplier to other businesses or an accountant visiting clients. Much of this travel will be on the county’s roads and they all give us one consistent message which has been the same for the past ten years or more, that is the congestion on our roads causes unnecessary delays which cost both time and money. One of the worst affected areas is south Essex especially around the M25, A13 and A130. This is a fast- growing area with plans to grow even further in the future with the creation of the Thames Freeport containing two of the UK’s most import ports, London Gateway and Tilbury. Adjoining them is Basildon, which is also expanding rapidly and further along the Thames Estuary Southend on Sea which is now celebrating its’ city status with its own plans for growth. The existing Lower Thames Crossings are already congested and it is vital that the proposed Third Crossing goes ahead as planned. Not only does this congestion affect the local and wider Essex economy but also that of the East of England and the UK itself. At a time when we are encouraging businesses to invest, to grow and to export we cannot sit back and let this situation continue. It is essential that this project proceeds as planned for the future of our businesses and residents of Essex. We urge Government to confirm that the planning and construction processes are expedited as a matter of urgency."

Fiona Marshall
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Frank Street
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces"

Glenys Jackson
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Graham Cogger
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Guy Wootton
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. •Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. •Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. •Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. •Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces"

Jane Giffould
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Do we need these 'developments'? Yet more in the south east which is already over-developed."

Jill Duckworth
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Jonathan Pittock
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. We have already seen how HS2 has under-estimated its impact on the wildlife and habitats, all in the name of progress."

Jonathan Roy Mullett
"The fact that people don't travel as much as they used to do and the massive cost involved means it's a waste of public time and money. Plus the complete devastation to the irreplaceable environment when were are now more conscious of the the need to save as much as we can. As a tax payer I'm completely against it."

Judith Reed
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. For example, Broadfields Farm, part of Thames Chase - donating isolated small areas in lieue does not substitute for loss of current conjoined areas, especially for wildlife movements. Damage to fragile environments to south of Thames. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Julie Eve
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites.   Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects.   Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Kate Hayward
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Kathryn Turner
"I'm concerned about the impact on wildlife including rare and protected newts which will be adversely affected by the development. Also the distruction of trees and habitats and wonder if the route can be changed to protect these valuable and decreasing assets. Will new woodlands and habitats be created as I assume it will go ahead as conservation has little voice or impact on development these days unfortunately."

Kenny Knowles
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Kent County Council on behalf of Kent & Medway Economic Partnership
"The Kent & Medway Economic Partnership (KMEP) is made up of Kent & Medway’s 14 Local Authority leaders, 17 business representatives and representatives from higher and further education. KMEP drives forward and monitors strategic economic plans for Kent and Medway. KMEP strongly agrees that the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) is needed and supports it for the reasons below: (Please note however that 2 District Councils in Kent (Swale and Gravesham) do have a different viewpoint and will be submitting separate representations). 1. Unpredictable journey times on the Dartford crossing result in lower productivity for businesses and commuters. An alternative route will provide resilience for local infrastructure particularly when incidents close the existing crossing. 2. Businesses will benefit – new markets and supply chains could be created. Skilled employees would also be able to easily cross the river, reducing a current recruitment barrier. Additionally, we hope that local firms will be able to bid for contracts during the construction phase as well as future maintenance, thus providing additional local employment opportunities. 3. Weakness of current infrastructure – the Dartford crossing has been functioning significantly in excess of its design capacity and experiences frequent and severe congestion which will only worsen without an additional crossing. It is also an accident hotspot. 4. Local Economic Growth Opportunities are being stymied by congestion resulting from incidents at the current crossing. Accelerated housing growth and increased vehicle numbers in Kent means that swift intervention is needed to avoid congestion deteriorating further. 5. Wider economic impact - the current crossing is a nationally important section of road infrastructure with HGVs travelling from the Port of Dover (the UK’s busiest ro-ro port) and the Channel Tunnel via Dartford to the Midlands and North. Reduced travel times will benefit the national economy. However, KMEP requires that further resilience to be built into the wider Kent (and South Essex) transport networks to prevent congestion being pushed to the next weakest point and effectively cutting off access to coastal communities in particular. The investment, planning, and construction of infrastructure should be made concurrently, rather than at a later period. While current schemes such as the M2 Junction 5 improvements and the Levelling Up Funding for improvements at Dover port will build additional resilience into Kent’s wider road network, further improvements and bifurcation of Channel traffic are essential to achieve the full the benefits of the LTC including: 1. Improvements to the M2 / A2 corridor: • Upgrading M2 Junction 7 at Brenley Corner (a Road Investment Strategy (RIS) 3 2025-30 ‘pipeline’ project) • Dualling the A2 single carriageway from Lydden to Dover (A2 Dover Access, a RIS3 2025-30 ‘pipeline’ project) • Widening the 2 lane stretches of the M2 (junctions 4 to 7). 2. Improved linkages between the M20 and M2: • Upgrading the A229 with accompanied improvements to M2 junction 3 and M20 junction 6 to allow free flow between the two motorways without impeding local traffic (this is a Kent County Council-led project bidding to DfT for Large Local Major scheme funding that would require a contribution from the LTC to offset its impact). • Upgrading the A260 from Lydden to Hawkinge – the most easterly rung in the ladder between the M20/A20 and M2/A2 3. Permanent off-road lorry park provision and improved technology solutions at the Channel ports to eliminate the need for Operation Brock, ensuring the free flow of UK-EU traffic and tackling inappropriate lorry parking across Kent. KMEP also requests that National Highways protect existing businesses and communities from any negative impacts that may be brought by the LTC’s construction by ensuring that: 1. Adequate measures are put in place to prevent inappropriate use of local roads (A227, A228 and A2 from Medway to Faversham) which are designed to serve local communities. Long-distance traffic must remain on the Strategic Road Network. 2. Working positively with local authorities and stakeholders to ensure the most appropriate environmental, air and noise mitigation measures are put into effect. Finally, KMEP would encourage sustainable and active travel options to be considered within the scheme – could there be opportunities for non-motorised users and public transport to make use of the new crossing?"

Lesley Cornish
"My concerns are the loss in biodiversity of insects and small mammals. The breaking up of habitats into isolated fragments with no 'corridors'. Light and noise pollution affecting bats, birds and insects. The potential for increasing urbanisation of a wild area in the future due to new developments. The building of infrastructure and link roads and ever increasing reliance on cars and lorries. The apparent disregard of earlier government promises to reduce carbon footprint, emissions and to encourage greener transport methods."

Linda Margaret Reynolds
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Lisa Derbyshire
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Mr Alan Goldsworthy
"IRREPRABLE DAMAGE TO OUR PLANET AND ALL LIFEFORMS THAT USE THIS AREA OF CONFLICT."

Mrs L A Knowles
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Myles Cook
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Professor Phil Goodwin
"The case for the scheme is faulty, as it is not compliant with important parts of the National Policy Statement, the Department for Transport’s appraisal guidance, and other material Government policies on value for money and climate. (I note that this does not concern the merits of the NPS). There are inconsistencies in the assumptions and calculations published by National Highways. Resolving these inconsistencies weakens, and in some cases overturns, the case for the scheme. The case for the scheme has not been adequately updated since early versions, especially in relation to transport conditions and plans in the vicinity of the scheme, and in those areas to and from which users of the scheme will travel, affecting the reliability of the case, risk factors, and traffic conditions, benefits and costs. A proper consideration of alternatives has not previously been carried out, and therefore the Examining Authority cannot satisfy itself that it has been."

Rich Yates
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Roger Hoodless
"• Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. • Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Essex is already disappearing rapidly under mass housing developments."

Sarah Binnie
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Timothy Vaughan
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Tracey Mendham
"M The Lower Thames Crossing proposal Has always been a massive concern We are losing so much green belt to schools, houses and some awful logistic centres and so forth and our wildife doesn’t stand a chance . We have the worst pollution here with asthma at an all time high . 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Badgers are supposed to be protected as are bats and many others but they never are . Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. There fore I am against and oppose this crossing"

Alan Last
"I have serious concerns about the impact on wildlife and habitats in Essex, including - 1. Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles, and rare insects 2. Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites 3. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds, and insects 4. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity 5. Generating more traffic and increasing C02 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government,s target to achieve net zero by 2050 6. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces"

Alison Clayton
"I oppose the development of this tunnel on the grounds of: Further destruction of valuable wildlife habitat on the Thames marshes and in joining the road network to the M25 across nature rich land. This will further impact the ongoing reduction and decline in nature. The increase in congestion, pollution and the further decrease of air quality. Continual and significant congestion due to construction traffic. It will eventually lead to the increase in further development of Housing and industry around this site and end up joining London via a concrete corridor to Southend-on-Sea The destruction and reduction of Green belt land across Essex."

Angela Mary Brace
"Whilst I would welcome the dualling of the A12 from Braintree up towards the major ports of Harwich and Felixstowe I am not sure about this tunnel. I would support it if the tunnels continue into Essex and Kent thus leaving land as it is and just emerge to join a motorway junction. The Lower Thames Crossing proposal links Essex and Kent beneath the Thames, with 23km of new road and two 4km tunnels being built, to open up South Essex to future development. If approved, this will have harmful implications for wildlife and our landscape. 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Ben Mott
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Caron Willans
"I have concerns about the impact of this. You will be damaging all the wonderful landscape. This will cut into wildlife habitats and the wonderful countryside. There will be biodiversity loss, such as rare insects and water voles. Ancient woodland would also be damaged. There will obviously be increased noise, which would disturb wildlife breeding and feeding. More worryingly, traffic will be considerably increased, causing more CO2 emissions. Do we really want this? The Govt are meant to achieve net zero by 2050. This seems a ridiculous project to me. I hope that you will reconsider this, and reject it."

James Lawson Planning Ltd on behalf of Clearserve Ltd
"Clearserve Ltd (CSL) supports the DCO Application. CSL acknowledge that land & rights at Rainbow Shaw Quarry need to be acquired/ possessed in order to deliver the LTC Project, as CSL land falls within the 'Order Limits'. A Statement of Common Ground process is envisaged to determine the detailed land & planning matters arising, including; * the LTC Project impact on CSL's statutory requirement to Restore the quarry & implement a 5 year programme of Aftercare, requiring variations to be made to the consented position pursuant to Section 73 of the 1990 T7CP Act; * the matter of CSL's land (& development potential) being injuriously affected by the LTC Project;"

Deborah Reynolds
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Dr Susan Huggett
"Whilst I understand and support the need for this development, and believe the chosen route to be a reasonable compromise for infrastructure and the local environment, I remain concerned about the following: i) The impact on wildlife and habitats in Essex and Kent during construction ii) Biodiversity loss, as a result of local habitat loss and disturbance during construction iii) Increased noise and lighting during construction, causing disturbance to communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Guarantees from the developers are needed to ensure mitigation on these issues, and regular checks that all proceeds as agreed need to be written into the planning consent."

European Metal Recycling Limited
"Having reviewed the proposals for the LTC, we note that one of our operational sites where we hold a leasehold interest, will be compromised during the works period. Title Numbers EX845758 and EX569157 will both be affected. Our sheer (scrap processing machine) and vehicle parking/storage area form part of the temporary works area and will be subject to permanent rights after completion of the construction period. It would have been beneficial to select another area of the wider land-take so as to avoid any longer term operational issues or claims for business interruption, that are likely to arise as a result. Due to personnel changes within EMR, this matter was not raised sooner, however we make these representations now in good faith and would welcome discussion around the proposal and any set-down areas, temporary or permanent land that will conflict directly with the commercial operation of the East Benfleet Scrap Yard."

Frank Talbot
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Harry Rayner
"I am concerned about the means of transport and the destination of tunnel bored spoil."

Jane Ponton
"I have serious concerns about the impact on local living conditions, including; Huge increase in vehicles into an area already suffering major traffic congestion. More traffic adding greatly to local air pollution and C02 levels. Associated need for more housing, developments and future developments that will put pressure on existing infrastructures, like hospitals and emergency services. U am also extremely concerned 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites.   Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects.   Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces"

Janet Dunford
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Reduced life expectancy of local residents due to pollution"

Jeanette Wellard
"I am one of many local equestrians in the area and know it would be much appreciated if access is given to equestrians in this area. There are many stables & livery yards locally (in excess of 1800 equestrians in postcodes ME1, ME5, ME6, ME14, ME19 & ME20) and building in the area is currently restricting linking of routes due to increase number and speed of traffic. I write in relation to two sites: Burham site & Blue Bell Hill site: a bridle path/multi user path (for equestrian, cyclists & walkers) around these sites would link up local bridle paths/byways. I would like this to be considered as linking these routes would enable users to exercise with less risk of a road traffic accident. If at all possible it would be extremely beneficial if a link could be made from Byway KH86 (Lower Warren Road) enabling riders/cyclists to get to Byway KH6 (near Harp Farm) without having to use Harp Farm Road which is extremely fast & dangerous. It is known that most cyclists are men and 75% of horse riders are women so it could be considered discriminatory if equestrians are not included in any additional routes planned. It is also interesting to note that The British Horse Society recognise equestrians spend approximately £5000 p.a in their local area. Thank you for your consideration."

Joseph Patrick Finnegan
"I have two key points in relation to developing a new Lower Thames Crossing. 1. I live at Greenhithe, two miles from the Dartford Crossing, but I am regularly affected by the knock-on impact of problems at the tunnels simply as a local resident, not actually using the crossing on most occasions. The A206 which links to the crossing at Junction 1a comes through Greenhithe and is used constantly by traffic seeking to cross the river but trying to avoid queues on the M25. This affects not just the road from the A2 past Bluewater but also the ‘local’ A226 London Road both east and west through Greenhithe as tunnel traffic heads for both the A206 and Cotton Lane on the edge of Dartford, to reach Junction 1a. Additionally Junction 1b at Dartford offers another opportunity for tunnel traffic to use the local roads to try to jump any motorway queues. When there are problems at the Dartford Tunnels, including just heavy usage, the whole area surrounding Greenhithe and Dartford can become impassable for local residents. This experience reinforces • that there is undoubtedly a need for further capacity crossing the Thames, and • that any new capacity needs to be created away from the existing bottlenecks at Dartford. 2. Any charging associated with a new crossing should be fully integrated with the existing Dartford scheme so that crossing charge account holders can use the alternative crossing without incurring additional administrative burdens, in the event of a problem at either crossing."

Julie Salter
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Keith Morris
"The below points sum up my opinions on this proposal: 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces"

Lauren Cosson
"I/We 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Lorna Cannon
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Matthew Turner
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces In addition there is an impact on my own mental health which is caused by the constant development of our infrastructure and expansion of our towns and cities at the expense of the natural world, with inadequate and insufficient habitat mitigation that will take years to come to fruition, if at all. This is always something that I find very hard to understand."

Mr Robert W Owen
"I have major concerns about the impact on wildlife and habitats in Essex, including: • The loss of Biodiversity, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. • Fragmentation of wildlife habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. The roads will be built to avoid the maximum number of buildings hence running mainly through open green space. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • New roads always generate additional traffic and increased CO2 emissions, this directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. •"

Sarah Lane
"I am very worried 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Wandsworth Bridge Road Association
"The Wandsworth Bridge Road Association as an organisation works to combat air-pollution, improve the health and well being of the population and enable the regeneration of High Streets, both locally in West London, and nationally becoming an exemplar of the 15min village. Car dominance is as the heart of our current crises: Climate, Air, Health and it is now recognised that as a society we must reverse our priorities. This is recognised in HMG's transport policy. Build more roads and more cars will come. Any "extra capacity" will quickly disappear failing in the primary stated objective of relieving the Dartford tunnel. This project is: - contrary to Government's climate obligation - Fails our legally binding climate obligations under Paris Agreement - contrary to Government's air pollution reduction objectives - Fails Treasury's BCR (even excluding correctly priced environmental impacts) There is no valid argument; economic or societal for this project and it should not go ahead. Funding for transport urgently needs to move away from road infrastructure to public transport and active transport. kind regards [Redacted]"

Alex Haniewicz
"To support the project - it is necessary to manage traffic flows in this area"

Andrew Keeler
"Consideration for the impact on aquatic wildlife including but not limited to Fish, invertebrates, crustations, water and land insects, birds and land animals that use, rely appon and frequent, watercourses both above and below ground, marshes, bogs, ponds and the impact on aquifers."

Angharad Johnson
"As a local resident of Strood I am deeply concerned about the environment impact that the proposed project could have upon our local area. The construction of the crossing would cause awful destruction, noise and air pollution, congestion as well as the destruction of precious ancient woodland and green belt and agricultural land. The project is beyond expensive and would vastly reduce already poor air quality in the local area. The A2 and surrounding roads of North Kent are already at breaking point with road congestion. W ndo no need hundreds more vehicles per day using the local roads in order to access the proposed crossing."

Anne Rea
"While I consider there is a need the lower Thames crossing I personally consider the current proposal unworkable and complicated. In my view the crossing should be built on the Isle of Grain at the site of the Old Power station and Oil Refinery which is a now a large unused brownfield site and was the area originally considered for the crossing. When the road to the grain site was upgraded it was designed to be further uprated to motorway standards and interconnect with the large junction where the A2 becomes the M2. The proposed junction at Gravesend East is overly complicated to enable it to fit into such a small area."

Aubrey Nestor
"My primary representation is that the whole LTC proposal should be scrapped. It's original aim when the project was kicked off many years ago was to reduce congestion at the Dartford Crossing. By HE's own figures they will only reduce congestion at Dartford by 14% based on traffic figures that are already a couple of years out of date. By the time the LTC is actually built and operational the traffic figures will have increased to a point whereby the actual congestion at Dartford will be far higher than it currently is and the LTC will have had negligible impact. To make matters worse Thurrock Council recently did their own study on the impact of the LTC on Dartford congestion and concluded that the LTC would only result in a 4% reduction on today's numbers! (I am much more inclined to believe Thurrock's numbers!). Now that it apparent that Dartford Crossing congestion reduction will not justify the LTC project HE have instead shifted the primary aim to 'stimulating wider economic activity' and they have come up with a pretty nebulous claim of £8billion worth of economic benefits resulting from the LTC development. HE were very reluctant to release any details of how they arrived at this £8billion number but after a court order obtained by the LTC Action Group they were forced to publish their cost/benefit analysis which, unsurprisingly, has been found to be full of holes. With the estimated cost of the project at £10billion and rising, and with highly dubious 'wider economic benefits, and with no significant reduction of congestion at Dartford this project is extremely poor value for money and should be scrapped. The only effective way of reducing congestion at Dartford is by building more crossing capacity AT DARTFORD! For reasons best know to themselves HE discarded this option very early on. My secondary concern is more specific to HE's proposal to locate a works compound right up against the southern border of the North Ockendon Conservation village. They also intend to create a monstrous slag heap of the waste from the construction digging which will be located at the perimeter of this compound. They have kindly referred to this slag heap as an 'Aural and Visual barrier' to protect the village from the noise and sight of the construction works. In fact the construction of this slag heap so near to the village will cause residents far more noise, vibration and poluution than the actual road constuction works themselves. The relocation of this compound to this site was a late breaking design change which HE did not include within their consultation document. They justified this on the basis that it was 'too minor' to merit inclusion. In fact this is a hugely significant change which will inflict years of noise and misery on to our small conservation village community. We have made our feelings clear to HE but they seem minded to ignore them and proceed regardless. We would urge the Planning Inspectorate to order HE to find a more suitable site for this compound and slag heap which is sufficiently far from human residences as to not constitute an issue. I look forward to views other than those of HE getting a fair hearing by the Planning Inspectorate."

Brian Seeger
"To ensure the lower thames crossing will be able to carry enough traffic to substantially reduce congestion at the Dartford crossing"

Carol Goldsmith
"Concerned about the detrimental affect to Baker Street end of Orsett village. Also concerns about disruption during construction"

Chris Windle
"I am a truck driver [Redacted]and I fully support the lower Thames crossing, it can’t come soon enough."

Climate Emergency Planning and Policy
"Dr Andrew Boswell, Climate Emergency Planning and Policy I am an independent environmental consultant. I object to the Lower Thames Crossing: (1) The most important question is “to what extent does the project contribute, or undermine, securing the Net Zero Strategy (“NZS”) and the net zero target?”. It requires contextualisation within a robust risk assessment of the related policy delivery, and a robust assessment methodology of the significance of the greenhouse gas emissions (“GHGs”). Neither exist in the environmental statement (“ES”). (2) Recent Progress Reports from the Climate Change Committee (“CCC”) show that the success of the NZS and the related Transport Decarbonisation Plan (“TDP”) are by no means secured no weight can be given to the proposition that they are. The same delivery risk was highlighted by the High Court in 2022 Net Zero Strategy case (A). Further, initial analysis of calculations underpinning the TDP (B) show that the TDP is far from being secured in any meaningful sense. (3) Chapter 15 is based upon an article of faith: the “inevitable success” of the TDP eg: 15.6.4. The so-called “TDP Sensitivity Test” used in chapter 15 (eg: Table 15.17), and based on the same article of faith, is not a genuine scientific sensitivity test. No risk or error bounds assessment is given for it. Even the “upper bound” figures are far from secured. The method is not based on any standard, documented or official guidance. (4) Significance of GHGs in Chapter 15 is assessed solely on “scheme-only” (DS-DM) estimates [percentage figures in Table 15.17]. This does not comply with the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 which require that the applicant must provide the cumulative impacts of the project and other existing and/or approved projects. The section “Intra-project effects” under section 15.7 does not address this issue because the intra-project effects are expressed in both the DS and DM forecasts, and are subtracted out before the assessment based upon DS-DM. (5) The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) “Assessing greenhouse gas emissions and evaluating their significance” guidance (February 2022) states that best EIA practice for GHGs is to use sectoral, regional and local carbon budgets to contextualise the project’s GHG emissions. The IEMA guidance says comparison against national budgets is only of “limited value”. Chapter 15 does not follow this guidance, and instead makes a sole assessment of significance against the entire UK economy carbon budget. (6) The project forecasts both trip growth [APP-518, Table 6.3] and longer trips. (7) We are in a climate emergency, and it is a crisis of ever-increasing dimensions. Construction emissions of 1,762,967 tCO2 and operation emissions at 6,974,840 tCO2 [Table 15.15] from the traffic model area in 2045, just 5 years from net zero date, demonstrate policy failure. And these emissions have a very real material impact on meeting UK carbon budgets and targets and cannot be justified within the planning balance. (A) R (Friends of the Earth) v Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin) (B) DfT Information release “Traffic Level and Electric Vehicle Assumptions used in Decarbonising Transport: A Better, Greener Britain”, Jan 12th 2023 [Redacted]"

Clive James Rea
"While I consider there is a need for anther Thames crossing I personally consider the current proposal as the right idea but in the wrong place. In my view the tunnel should be built at Grain on the site of the Old Power station and Refinery which is a large brownfield site and the are originally considered for the crossing. The when the road to the grain site was upgraded it was designed to be further uprated to motorway standards and interconnect at the large junction where the A2 becomes the M2. The proposed junction at Gravesend East is overly complicated to enable it to fit into such a small area."

Colin Johnson
"I fully accept and appreciate the need for this project as it will largely alleviate pressure on the A2 and divert much of the heavy goods vehicles around the southern approaches to London towards many of the areas to the north of England."

David Penman
"I am concerned that not all measures that will reduce the noise and visual impact of the project on myself and other residents in East Tilbury are being taken. More specifically in relation to the decision to use a viaduct rather than a cutting for a section of the motorway as runs past East Tilbury and also whether all measures to reduce the noise and visual impact of a viaduct are being taken."

Dr James Stevens
"As a local resident, scientist, and end user of the impacted environment and surrounds I echo the objections raised by the Essex Wildlife Trust: Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. 1. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. 2. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. 3. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. 4. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. The crossing will not, in real terms, achieve any reduction in the environmental impact of travel but will clearly increase though construction, increased vehicle usage, and loss of green habitat. There is no doubt that the road building and subsequent car use is not “it” but rather the developments that will follow, essentially paving over farmland and communities that have existed for a millennia. The latter point is not simple nimbyism or a desire to prevent change at all costs. It is because the lost of the rural belt between London and south east Essex will make all sides poorer, both visitors from London boroughs and the Essex residents. Given that vehicle journeys should be reducing when car ownership dwindles from 2030, it seems short sighted to spend ever more vast amounts of public money on this project. This is not a precursor to “good growth” and I would encourage the department to do better."

Fiona Bunton
"I object to the LTC proposal for the the following reasons: *The proximity to the populated area of Ockendon *The impact on our listed buildings including St Nicholas church on the green. *The impact of the construction on our very limited road network. *The spiralling costs of the project *The fact that the proposals are not fit for purpose and will not provide a solution only create more problems. *The disregard for better locations that would have less affect large populations and reduce the traffic in an already congested area. *The impact of construction on local residents including noise and pollution *The impact of welfare sites for construction workers and all the extra vehicles in the area. *The dividing of thousands of people by the construction of a motorway through the area *The decimation of precious green belt and wood land surrounding this already polluted area. *The total devastation on residents health in the area directly impacted by the pollution of a new motorway and all the non electric cars and long distance, European lorries driving pass our neighbourhood. *The creation of a toxic triangle with exiting A13 + A127 + M25 is unfair *The way National Highways had conducted the consultation: limiting access to plans, information and using ridiculously complicated online forms where you had to open very specialist detailed specs to answer any questions (hours of work): not inclusive and events have been limited in there location and access with time and place."

Gareth Oakland
"Building more road capacity is the wrong answer when we need to reduce emissions and traffic. If there is a need for another Thames crossing it should focus on mass transit and active travel provision."

Gary Bradbury
"To give support to the Application , on the basis of a M25 Dartford Crossing user over many years. To question strongly why the Application does not now include a proposal to build a new Services Centre on the new road near/ next the Tunnel,when the need for such a facility is very clear and the construction of the southern approaches will involve the demolition of an existing Services / petrol station. The need for new Services is clearly undeniable and it would be completely unacceptable that the new road does not include new Services. Thank you"

Helen Burgess
"My Land abuts the Hole Farm Community Land. We’re have a view across the valley to where the M25 and the A127 intersect, and the stretch of the M25 which is to be widened"

Ian Brown
"I intend to object to the proposed lower Thames crossing."

Jan Marshall
"I have serious concerns about the impact the Lower Thames Crossing will have on wildlife and habitats in Essex, including: Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. This is a very short-sighted solution where there should be much more divergent blue sky thinking to preserve the wonderful wildlife and habitats we have and which are way more precious than a crossing."

John Cheeseman
"We have put up with the traffic and congestion for long enough now.It is high time something is done about the lack of crossing places on the thames.We have put up with the failed east london river crossing fiasco many years ago and now is the time for some real action,not just words."

Jonathan 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites.   Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects.   Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Karen Calder
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. I also have concerns in regards to air pollution as the crossing will be generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. On a more local level, as a Thurrock resident, Thurrock is already recognised as the most polluted area in the country - residents will be subjected to even higher levels of pollution impacting their human right to clean air as detailed in the Clean Air Act 1993. In addition there is no evidence provided to illustrate how this crossing will significantly reduce congestion at the existing Dartford Crossing or wider area. In regards to funding, as a UK taxpayer, I also have concerns around value for money and the accuracy of costings currently supplied."

Lisa Gouge
"I am interested in the impacts that this has on my community, infrastructure, traffic, welfare of wildlife and surrounding areas. The impact it has on pollution where I live, mine and my families health. The distribution to travel, landscape, nature areas, wildlife. I want to be kept informed in order to add my options as I have lived in this area all my life."

Malcolm Phelps
"My representation is that in order to reduce congestion at the present crossing, only vehicles not requiring an escort should be permitted through the present north bound tunnels."

Mark William Sopher
"1) The Environmental impact on the local eco systems of Thames marshes of Essex. 2) The Environmental impact on the local eco systems of Thames marshes of Kent. 3) The disruption and nuisance to local communities in Essex and Kent. 4) The increased traffic drawn into Essex and Kent and the effect on air quality outside of ULEZ."

Mr Chris Forsyth
"I live very close to the planned works and I'm concerned about the environmental impacts and construction related traffic during the building of the new road and junctions. I would like to ensure the works are compled with the least impact to the local residents."

Mr Cristian J Ramis
"I am concerned about the impact the proposed project could have on wildlife and habitats in Essex, including: • Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. • Damage to, and fragmentation of, habitats including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting that disturbs communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Increased traffic and CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Mr John F Reymond BSc CEng MIET
"Delighted that progress is at last being made on this long overdue project. The sooner constructon begins the better."

Mr Paul Walford BA(Hons)
"I consider that my views for this project are both valid and beneficial for all parties concerned. I would generally be supportive of a new river crossing, since it would ease congestion in SE London and provide easier access for me to travel to Essex to visit my broader family."

Mr. C. Hounsell
"Air quality and other environmental issues."

Natural England
"Representation to follow by email"

Nick Power
"Please just get on and build the thing I’m sick of being a local living person with all the misery of the traffic and air quality impact that causes."

Oliver Platts
"The Lower Thames Crossing as planned will: - Consume a great quantity of land resources for no good reason. Including: farmland needed for food security, potential land for housing to alleviate the housing crisis, and land that is currently wild species natural habitat, including woodland and greenbelt, during a national crisis of wild species population collapse - Create a great amount of carbon emissions during construction for no good reason - Increase the UK's carbon emissions produced through road transport, through induced demand - Not solve the problem it is intended to solve, namely alleviating traffic congestion around the Dartford Crossing. Through induced demand, soon after completion of the Lower Thames Crossing, the Dartford Crossing will be just as congested as it was before, only with the added problem now of the congested Lower Thames Crossing. In this it is, as planned, just like most other new road building schemes other than roads with expensive ongoing tolls - Is financially irresponsible due to the additional burden not only of construction, but also of the ongoing costs incurred by maintaining the Lower Thames Crossing infrastructure into the future, at a time when national budgets are highly constrained and when budget is required for other, more important, priorities."

Paul Fisher
"The option needs to take proper account of residents opinions and it is vital that the eventual contractors act expeditiously and effectively"

Peter Hill
"Principally, the resulting congestion ease at the existing Thames Crossing at Dartford"

Ray Hockley
"The impact on the environment The provision of electric charging capability in line with carbon net zero goals The source of long term support and maintenance funding"

Recycled In Orsett Ltd
"This development will aid businesses in the area to grow and work more efficiently and the crossing will allow for significant growth in the area, currently it is a absolute nightmare to get any flow of work due to the bottle neck that is the Dartford crossing businesses in the area are being strangled by the cost of the time it takes to transition through the tunnel and the surrounding area which is clogged with traffic 90% of the day and which 90% of which is only trying to get north and south for ports and delivery points further up country"

Reg Ramm
"traffic congestion"

Richard Gethin
"I do not feel that enough consideration has been given to the problem of traffic passing through Sole Street to reach the tunnel from the south of Kent. A satnav will direct a driver on the most direct route which, from the south, will be through Sole Street. As this village has narrow roads and no footpath, through most of it, it will become a bottleneck and very dangerous to pedestrians. Direction signs and traffic restrictions must be put in place on the A227 to deter traffic from rat running through Sole Street."

Richard Wheeler
"To support the building of LTC to relieve some of the traffic issues in north Kent and around Dartford"

Robert Heath
"I am concerned that Green Farm Lane will become a short cut between the Gravesend-Rochester Road and the Lower Higham Road. Green Farm Lane is a quiet country lane and has a 7.5T weight limit with a 30mph limit on the top third and national speed limit on the rest. Only recently, there was a serious accident where a transit type van overturned due to speeding around a blind bend and meeting a stationary vehicle. Our fear is that construction traffic will use the lane and that should the construction cause congestion or a significant increase in traffic generally, on both or either of The Gravesend Road and Lower Higham Road then traffic will use the Lane as a rat run. We would like to see a proposal as part of the Traffic Management Plan that would successfully solve this problem. For example, closing one end of the Lane to through traffic, say the Lower Higham Road ( except for emergency vehicles) end which would be the least inconvenient for residents but would preserve the integrity of the Lane."

Roger Hill
"REQUIRED TO REDUCE DELAYS AT THE DARTFORD CROSSING AND MAKE TRAVEL EASIER FROM EAST KENT"

Rosalind Young
"As a local school teacher who lives very close to the proposed route I am concerned for the pollution that this road construction will produce for my community especially for our young children. However I am also very passionate about wildlife. I am further concerned regarding the desimation of our the ancient woodland site Ashen Bank woods ( a SSI), Brundle Hill (part of Randal wood) and the proposed entrance to the tunnel at Shorne where more wildlife including needed land for wading birds will be taken. The habitat loss and road kill caused by this project will be immense and in a time where we need to consider our impact on the environment. More than simply planting trees will have to be done here. I want to be kept notified on choices, plans and ccountability of the impact on our delicate and green environment."

Rowland Wheatley
"I am a regular user of the Dartford crossing from Kent. While I have not experienced long delays in crossing of late, I would welcome a second crossing. Also a crossing in the location proposed could further cut my travel times. I do not propose to make further representations, but would like to follow the progress of this project. Thank you."

Roy Tulkens
"Environmental Issues"

Suzanne Heath
"I am concerned about construction traffic using Green Farm Lane as a cut through from the Lower Higham Road to the Gravesend Road (this is a common problem that would become exacerbated once construction is underway. It is a country lane and excessive/overweight/fast traffic is dangerous and invasive. Further my concern is that once the tunnel is constructed that Green Farm Lane (which should be a quiet country lane) will be used as a 'rat run' should there be issues with congestion on the A2 and Gravesend Rochester Road. What plans have been or will be put in place to ensure that Green Farm Lane remains unaffected by constrution and post construction. A solution would be to close off the top of the Lane where it meets with Gravesend/Rochester Road."

T Turner
"I was unfortunate enough to live in Kent during the 70s and as a young boy did not appreciate the amount of destruction that was going on around me with the building of hundreds of thousands of houses and roads that literally ripped through what was once I believe was called the garden of England. Once every couple of years I return to the area where I once lived and every time I get lost due to the fact so much more concrete and tarmac has gone down I do not recognize where and when or indeed I have got off a motorway. The millions of pounds of taxpayers money widening the M25 has done what? Why did not someone within the Ministry of Transport or whatever its called now not invest in a monorail one clockwise the other opposite. It could have been done in stages as and when the country could afford it. I fail to understand how further destruction can benefit anyone not just today but in 25 years time."

Terence Fox
"This is a vital Thames crossing point and should have been built years ago.If the Dartford crossing are closed the effect are felt all the way up to London.Any terrorist action at Dartford could bring mayhem to the road networks This new proposed should go ahead as soon as possible as it is off great national importance."

The Boreham Family
"Dear Sirs, Myself and my wife Mr and Mrs Boreham [Redacted] object to the proposed scheme. We consider that our following business interests will be directly affected by the scheme: 1) The business of Jays Lodge operated and owned by Mr & Mrs Boreham which is located at Chapel Farm. This is an accommodation based business. 2) I Mr Boreham am an occupier of the land title number 14134 under an Agricultural Holdings Act tenancy. 3) We jointly own the land as referenced on Land Registry as EX534657 which is partly scheduled to be permanently taken as part of the scheme. We would therefore ask Highways England to confirm: 1) What measures do Highways England propose during the scheme to keep access to Baker Street open for customers to access Jays Lodge? 2) What accesses will be provided both during and after the scheme to the tenanted land off the A1013 which Mr Boreham occupies? 3) Mr Boreham requires a minimum 6 meter access gate to allow for agricultural vehicles into the field off the A1013"

Tony Cocca
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Tracy White
"The points I wish to make are in relation to how the construction and subsequent operation of the Lower Thames Crossing and associated road network are going to impact on my health and wellbeing. I live in close proximity to the proposed junction of the A13 A1089 and new road, also where the 6 lane new road crosses from the junction through Chadwell St Mary, and also close to the proposed link road from the Orsett Cock roundabout. I am gravely concerned about the environmental and personal impact of light, noise and air pollution that will arise from the development, both during and after construction. In particular I am worried about air quality[Redacted] and I am not alone in this as Thurrock has one of the highest incidences of respiratory and cardiovascular disease in the country. To put it bluntly, the LTC is going to ruin lives and cost people their lives."

Usman Kabbia
"I am hereby support for the proposed Lowe thames crossing route. Dridge and development Having this facilities development would enable me and my family to commute fast and easily for work"

William Andrews
"The impacts the lower Thames crossing will cause on local and surrounding wildlife would be highly damaging. Also the impact on putting another crossing which isn't needed would be damaging to local infrastructure and the local people...another crossing is not needed to cross the thames, that's what the QE2 bridge is for and what it was made for"

William Wight
"The environmental impact of the proposed crossing outweighs the benefits."

Aisha Saher
"Increase in air and noise pollution, whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5 No provision for cross river active travel, not viable for public transport due to lack of adequate connections Destruction and impacts to homes and communities Concerns about construction impacts"

Amanda Wolsey
"I live within a mile of the proposed motorway and I am concerned about the environmental impact generally as well as the negative impact on my quality of life."

Andrew Charlton
"I object to the scheme because although it may relieve some of the pressure on the Dartford Crossing I do not believe it is worth the money or upheaval it will cause. 1. Spending £9bn on a project at a time when public finances are already overstretched in in my opinion is irresponsible. 2. An estimated 20 per cent reduction in traffic using the Dartford Crossing does not appear to be good value for money. 3. One of the beneficiaries from the 'LTC' project namely, Dartford Borough Council, have stated publicly that the Dartford Crossing is at 'saturation point' and yet they continue to develop warehousing facilities on the Littlebrook site close to the Dartford Crossing leading to more commercial pressure on the Dartford Crossing which is hypocritical by any means. 4. Very little thought has been given over to the adverse effect the LTC will have on the A228 through Cuxton to junction junction 4 of the M20 or the route through Peter's Village onto the A228 from the same junction. They will become 'rat runs' and the routes cannot sustain the greater volumes of traffic without the loss of more green belt land. 5. Since the original Dartford Tunnel was built in the 1960's the whole area either side of the River Thames has been developed. I would expect National Highways and other authorities such as Kent County Council, Gravesham Borough Council and Medway Unitary body to put assurances in place that if the scheme does go ahead that the Shorne marshes and other natural features are safeguarded from development. 6. The residents in the boroughs of Dartford and Thurrock benefit from a residents discount scheme related to the Dartford Crossing. I live within Gravesham Borough but live very close to the boundary with neighbouring Dartford and am closer to the Dartford Crossing than some Dartford residents and yet I cannot claim a discount. I understand that if the LTC goes ahead I am likely to benefit from a discount when using it. This will be of little or no benefit because I envisage using the Dartford Crossing in any event. Please ensure that any future discount scheme covering both the Dartford Crossing and LTC is properly thought out with residents of Gravesham being able claim a discount when using both or at the very least choose which crossing they wish to obtain a discount on."

Anthony Biggs
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

BTF Partnership on behalf of Baylis Family
"• The Interested Party is identified in the Statement of Reasons Annex B No. 59 and relates to Plots 11-36 and 11-37 • The Applicant has given insufficient consideration to a possible land swap with adjacent land that could have accommodated replacement buildings for those that are having to be demolished as a result of the diverted High Pressure Gas Mains arising from the enabling works. Instead of balancing loss of employment and likely extinguishment of a business, the applicant considers extensive environmental mitigation and public open space as being of greater priority. • There has been insufficient information from the Applicant with regard to the requirements and methodology of the enabling works that require this Interested Party to have their business extinguished and giving rise to redundancies. The reason given being that the Utility company will not provide that information. As the relayed gas main will need to be at a significant depth to go under the new A122 at the point of crossing and the road level will be in a deep cutting at this point, we do not consider it would have been necessary for the yard and buildings to be demolished when the pipe could be laid in safe walling pipe. The result has been the design of the Thong Lane Green Bridge being realigned and now necessitates the demolition of these buildings. • The Applicant has failed to consider a temporary solution and a potential land swap in order for the Interested Party to continue to operate. Representations were submitted to the various design consultations suggesting solutions, but as it was felt that this was too difficult, the Applicants design has culminated in the entire area being permanently acquired. Whilst discussions continue for a possible acquisition by agreement, the lack of alternative sites to move to will almost certainly result in a business extinguishment case."

Celia Burns
"LTC is not ethically supportable"

Christopher Sewell
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Christopher Zgoda
"Road Traffic modelling through Parish of Cobham, Kent and adjacent areas during construction and operation of LTC - no detail provided on data used for modelling and consider modelling highly flawed - modelling appears to take no account of the chaotic experiences from HS1 and A2 (major shift and widening of west bound carriageway south) construction of recent years - no mitigation measures for preventing rat race through Cobham and Sole Street and the mutitude of single track country roads in the parish when A2 section closed - No consideration of health and safety issues, nor specific mitigation, concerning the 330m main road section through Sole Street between Round Street and Scratton Fields (DA12 3AY) where there is no footpath or verge and 3 bends obscuring sight lines. Section frequently used by pedestrians, dog walkers, cyclists and horse riders"

Claire Walker
"We do not need another road crossing of the Thames. We need to reduce private car use and get more freight onto rail and river. There are many more useful ways of spending the money set aside for this project which will make public transport more available and accessible. The Blackwall tunnel is a miserable prospect for drivers so adding a toll to pay for an additional blight on London. Net Zero won’t be achieved this way."

Coleen
"I feel the project is too expensive, is a in the wrong place (the local roads will not cope), will do environmental damage to our area, IF it is needed it needs to be in the right place and other things."

Colin Hardy
"Yet another road project will not solve transport problems and in fact will negatively contribute to environmental damage. The funds would be far better spent on public transport, railways, buses, cycle lanes etc."

David Livitt
"The business case benefits are speculative and unavailable. The environmental impact is hugely under-stated. The cost and timescale are under-stated."

David Mcsweeney
"I am completely against the construction of the lower Thames crossing. As a local resident I think it will blight the lives of myself and my family for generations to come."

Denise Drain
"Air quality in Thurrock. Already poor"

Edward Barratt
"I am very concerned about the impact on wildlife and their habitats. In particular I would like to highlight : Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting - disturbing breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. The generation of more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050."

Elaine Rogers
"Good afternoon, 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Fleur Derbyshire-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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Francis Dunne
"Traffic Management in Grays and surroundings . Grays is badly affected when there are problems on the existing bridge or tunnel crossings. Traffic builds up and can cause traffic jams all the way back to Grays town and main roads around the town. The new tunnel crossing may compound these problems to the east of Grays, thus surrounding the Grays town with heavy traffic and cutting it off from the rest of Essex and London. The existing tunnel and bridge should be used by local and London traffic. The new tunnel crossing should be used by traffic from the North and South and East Kent and be directed onto the M25 without access to Grays. No route should be allowed off the road in south Essex before the M25 in Essex. No junction at the Orsett Cock. Failure to enforce/ encourage this type of traffic management will only cause more problems in Grays."

Gillian Davidoff
"I work closely with youth organisations in and around the south Ockendon & Thurrock areas, we have concerns that these groups are going to loose a lot of the country side that they have now because of the new road being built. Also the mayor of London is widen the area of the ulez which is to help with the pollution in the area, surely this new road will cause more pollution in the future not less. Also the general upheaval of all of our surroundings whilst this new road is being built. South Ockendon it’s self will become an island in the middle of 3 major roads which will destroy our rural community."

BTF Partnership on behalf of Gressier Family
"PROPERTY Puckle Hill, Shorne – residential property with private woodland and parkland extending in all to 34.23 ac (13.85ha). Owner-occupied by Interested Party. SCHEME 11.03 ha (27.26ac) compulsorily acquired for ancient woodland mitigation planting and HPGM diversion and provision for Public Open Space. Defined by Plots 03-15, 03-16, 03-23, 03-25, 03-39, 03-43, 03-52, 03-53, 03-54, 03-58, 03-60 & 03-80 in the Applicants numbered document 2.2, Land Plan, Volume B REPRESENTATION • Interested Party disputes the Applicants case for compulsory acquisition in the public interest. When the land was identified for acquisition for woodland planting, the Interested Party briefed the Applicant of their own intention to plant woodland on the land. The Applicant’s awareness of the Interested Party’s intention raises the question of whether the Applicant’s use of compulsory powers is necessary. • The Interested Party disputes the need for the Applicant to acquire land to the proposed extent for the proposed purpose. o Chapter 8 of the environmental statement confirms that the loss of ancient woodland is irreversible and irreplaceable. As such there is no basis upon which the extent of mitigation planting is calculated, however the Applicant has not considered the Interested Party’s request for amendments to the Order limits. The assessment approach for mitigation need has been assigned by Natural England to achieve connectivity between woodlands in the wider landscape, suggesting that the applicant’s use of compulsory powers would be an opportunistic means to an end rather than to achieving measurable mitigation. • The Interested Party disputes that due consideration has been given to the alternatives to acquisition of the land. o Much discussion has been held to explore possible alternatives to compulsory acquisition of the land for the woodland planting scheme. The expression of the Interested Party’s intention to plant trees on the land did not alter the Applicant’s approach to its Order Limits. A subsequent offer was made to agree a s.253 agreement for the interested party to manage the land – this was rejected on the ground of the Interested Party not being a competent authority. Next, the interested party requested input on the design and management of the woodland, which was rejected. The Applicant’s subsequent offer to install the Interested Party as a consultee on a steering panel for the management of the woodland was later withdrawn. As such it is believed that the applicant has not considered alternatives to justify the need for the compulsory acquisition of the land. • The claimant disputes that the application of compulsory powers will bring about the achievement of the aims set out in the Outline Landscape Environmental Management Plan (OLEMP) o The proximity of the Interested Party’s land to areas such as Park Pale raises concerns about the future use of the land for Public Open Space. The requirement for the general public to pay to park at Shorne Country Park already forces illegal park along Park pale Road. By extending the Public Open Space through the Interested Party’s land and through to connecting woodland will give rise to security concerns for the Interested Party and the likely increase of anti-social behaviour. This will contradict the aims and objectives of the OLEMP • The Interested Party disputes that the applicant has sufficient knowledge of the site and of possible alternatives to justify the proper use of compulsory powers of acquisition. o The Applicant’s planting scheme design fails to take account of the constraints of the landscape, a lack of on-site research during the pre-application stage has meant that other sites have been allocated for woodland planting based upon Title, not curtilage, an example of this being the proposed planting of the garden of a property on Bowesden Lane, Shorne, disregarding the curtilage boundary from the adjoining pastureland by favouring the Title Boundary. This example calls into question the accuracy adopted by the Applicant in its design."

BTF Partnership on behalf of GRT Holdings Limited
"• Statement of Reasons 4.1 under Annex B Schedule of Negotiations No327, identifies the engagement between the parties up to the point of submission of the DCO application and its subsequent acceptance by PINS. However, this does not provide the context of those discussions nor the misrepresentation by the applicant regarding the terms of the voluntary agreement and purchase price with the applicant reneging on the heads of terms that were previously agreed in the Summer of 2022. Whilst the value of the land is not a matter for the Inquiry, the background and discussions between the parties has influenced the subsequent design of the scheme and therefore alternatives have not been considered appropriately. • The Claimant was willing to engage with the applicant on the grounds of a voluntary acquisition due to the inevitability that the land take required for the Scheme would make the golf course redundant. The blight of the scheme arising from the Preferred Route announcement immediately affected the ongoing business with the loss of 30 plus employees seeking alternative jobs due to the inevitable closure of the course. The course had to be closed in August 2022 due to this blight and employees had to be made redundant. The applicant has refused to compensate for any of these closure costs even though it is contended that National Highways actions have been a material reason for the loss of a profitable and accessible sports/leisure facility in the borough of Gravesham. • Previous scheme designs for the use of the golf course land indicated varying options, part of which was to endeavour to replace the sport/leisure facilities. The land now forms part of the named Chalk Park and will consist of grassland and woodland planting and will provide public open space replacement. We consider that due to the closure of the golf course, the applicant has now over committed with its proposed replacement of what is referred to as special category land across the scheme and would ask PINS to question the applicants’ calculations for replacement special category land. • Following the closure of the golf course, even though security was put in place by the claimant, the whole site has been over-run by motorbikes and antisocial behaviour. By creating a grassland park, together with walking, cycling and horse-riding routes. this will only encourage this illegal use and cause significant detriment to local residents and nullify any alleged ecological and environmental mitigation proposals in the area. • An area of land extending to circa 8 acres, to include the clubhouse has not been identified for use by the scheme in the General Arrangement Plans, Sheet 11 and 13, and yet remains shaded red for permanent acquisition. If a voluntary agreement to acquire the full extent of the claimant’s land is not reached, there is no justification for this area to be subject to compulsory purchase."

Ian Isaac
"As a local resident want to ensure needs of local community are full considered in the application, both through the design and construction phase."

Iris Buffoni
"I am concerned about how close the LTC will be coming to my home. I cannot understand why ULEZ has been brought to Upminster, when the LTC is going to be to close."

J. Merriott
"I do not want to see SW Essex have any more building structures, it is overcrowded now and to add another road tunnel is going to be detrimental to our wildlife and most of all to residents who will have to put up with constant traffic noise and filth that comes off the backs of lorries and make the area a [Redacted]. We in Essex have enough to contend with as it is with heavy traffic flowing through our towns and villages and we don't need any more. Traffic is usually at a standstill early morning and evening rush hours and you will be adding even more to this big problem Please reconsider, the people and wildlife of our County do not want to have this tunnel and road wrecking what we have left of our Wildlife, we all need space and you are taking it away from us. Thank you"

Jaki Penfold
"I object on grounds of pollution and net zero targets not being met. I object on cost that should be put to more useful purposes ie new local NHS hospital and equipment. I object a on grounds that more traffic will be brought into the area which is already clogged with local traffic. I object to the congested junction area on the A2, reduced lanes to the existing 4 lanes near Neil's Cafe I feel this along with criss crossing of traffic to get into correct lanes will cause accidents. I also object to areas of our countryside being ripped up for a very unpopular project."

Jamie Clark
"I would like to know the impact on air quality and noise pollution and what evidence there is to support all claims if this road was built."

Jane Higgins
"The concerns about air quality do not extend to the health risks of a 6 lane motorway through a built up area. The new road crossing poses real dangers to health The new road crossing removes valuable green space from thousands of inhabitants"

Janet Murray
"The main points I will be regarding access routes to and from the tunnel. In principal I believe we need this crossing, now, and anything that brings this continual review process to a halt will enable work to start."

Jeff Belmour
"My representation will be against the building of the Lower Thames Crossing."

Jenny Scott-Thompson
"The lower Thames crossing is a terrible idea that is destroying the environment and will increase pollution through induced demand. Please stop encouraging private cars damaging our city."

Jonathan Olney
"Waste of over £10bn+, not value for money, false economy as other spending would be needed as direct result"

Julia Deeley
"I wish to object to the Lower Thames Crossing for the following reasons :- It will not relieve the problem at the DartfordTunnel It will create more pollution to the area It will increase heavy traffic to the area It will only benefit foreign transport It will destroy the nature and landscape of the area It is costing too much money and is increasing There were other options which were not fully explored by Highways England"

Karen Richardson-Judd
"I am against the new crossing,it will not decrease traffic but will increase the air pollution and cause more cases of asthma and other health conditions."

Kathryn Westell
"I do not wish this crossing, which will be of no useful purpose at all, to run across the fields at the back of my property. We’re being told to plant more trees to help with air quality etc. What about the woodlands etc. that will be destroyed? It’s no good saying new ones will be planted - they’ll take 50 plus years to reach the size of established trees! What about the disruption to wildlife - does no one care? All for the sake of a new road, which isn’t needed. If the current Thames crossing was organised correctly, there would be no need for this massive expenditure which our country surely cannot afford."

Leonard Colin Gaunt
"I object to the Lower Thames Crossing as it will place a large residential area along with its surrounding green fields and recreational areas within a ring of major roads causing pollution of all types. It is doubtful that it will afford any practical benefit and has already cost a large amount of money in pointless applications etc. The projected overall cost periodically rises by billions like many "public" works - who knows how much it will finally be? The crossing is not needed and not wanted. It flies in the face of promises to cut pollution and the need to provide residents in the area with safe living conditions and good health. It is anti so many things that are good for humans, serving only those benefit from degrading other peoples lives. There are better ways of doing things."

BTF Partnership on behalf of Lesley Quigley
"PROPERTY 7 ac. (2.68 ha.) equestrian property with accommodation and grazing for 12 horses to the north of the A13 forming an equestrian livery facility owner-occupied by the Interested Party. SCHEME 2 ac (0.81 ha) of land-take for construction of the LTC / A13 interchange. As Identified in the Applicants numbered document 2.2, Land Plan, Volume C as plots 29-85, 29-91, 29-102, 29-140, 29-186, 29-192, 29-211, 29-245, 29-251, 32-05, 32-06, 33-289, 33-290 IMPACTS 1. Loss of all 12 stables and land totalling 0.81 ha to DCO order-limits. 2. Severance of principal access from Baker Street 3. Re-alignment of WCH route REPRESENTATION • The Interested Party objects to the Applicant’s design and build strategy: No detail has been provided as to the provision of a replacement to an access which is to be lost to compulsory acquisition. • Mitigation and accommodation proposals have been in discussion – no agreement currently made."

Lindsey White
"I do not believe that the LTC should be approved to come through East Tilbury and Linford. It will have a great impact on the environment and will not add anything of significance to the area except for more pollution"

M. B. Leahy
"Objection for the need for an additional crossing. Proposed crossing in wrong place. Hugely destructive and harmful. Doesn’t meet scheme objectives Would not solve the problems suffered due to the Dartford Crossing. Could possibly create 'rat-running' on local roads, thus making the local situation worse. Waste of money, particularly in the current financial climate Destruction and impacts to homes and communities Increase in carbon emissions. Increase in other types of pollution eg all forms of air pollution, noise, light, etc. Impact on the health of local residents Loss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland. Loss and impact to woodland (inc ancient woodland), trees and greenbelt. Devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected species. Concerns about construction impacts."

Marianne Kok
"I have concerns over the £10bn+++ LTC, and what a huge waste of taxpayers' money it would be . There are more enviormentally cheaper options like option A14 that was not looked at properly"

Marine Management Organisation
"Good afternoon. Due to the word limit in this section, the Marine Management Organisation has submitted our relevant representation via e-mail to [email protected] on 17 February 2023. Should you have any questions please let me know. Kind regards Julia Stobie Marine Licensing Case Officer Marine Management Organisation."

Martin Stitchman
"I have serious concerns about the new Lower Thames Crossing between Essex and Kent and its effects on the environment and natural world including: Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Is this tunnel really necessary? I'm afraid I'm not certain that it is."

Mbeko Sihwa
"The crossing should be both a road and rail tunnel. There is no direct railway route between Essex and Kent. That would integrate the transport system and ease congestion on the Dartford tunnel. The funding for such a link might come from government money, Road tolls and rail operator funds. The current crossing doesn’t seem to me to adequately take into account rising sea levels and whether a flood barrier or new flood fences should be erected. It might be sensible to consider createva new tidal plant to provide power for an electric rail service through the rail tunnel."

Michael Bannister
"We presently suffer from an abnormal increased use of Chalk Road, Lower Higham, by HGV's, especially a skip company, namely RS Skips, based on the Apex Business Park. This could be alleviated if a slip road on & off the estate is built on the south (Kent) side of the approach road to the tunnel, with a proviso that it is compulsory for them to use it, & possibly ban HGV's altogether on Chalk Road, with a width restriction imposed. Yours sincerely, Mike Bannister."

Michael Jiggens
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Mr Graham Neill
"The route won't help the issues at the Dartford Crossing and costs to build it are going up and up. The cost is too high when the country is suffering financially. Living near it is going to be awful for years while it is built. Noise and pollution will be much worse as well and when it is open if as much traffic uses it as they think."

Mr Michael Beiley
"I am primarily concerned about long term capacity of the new crossing and the degree to which it will be "future proofed" including the ability of the crossing to be expanded to provide additional lanes if required in the future."

Mrs Christine Rouse
"Cost of the LTC compared with previously considered options. Will not meet it's original purpose of reducing problems at the Dartford Crossing but will add to and create massive traffic problems in several areas throughout construction. So for approx 5 years I believe there will be traffic chaos on a grand scale. I believe that Complexity of Orsett Junction alone will mean that road users will end up on the LTC by mistake. If they end up heading Southbound there is no provision to exit the LTC before the tunnel, and will then have to try to find the route back to the LTC Northbound from the A2 Junction. The Stanford Le Hope connection will potentially be a hazardous choice due to the nature of the current roundabout system there. A combined road/rail crossing East of Dartford would make more economical sense both for commuters and freight. At present to access Kent from Essex by Rail, it is necessary to travel into London. Looking to the Future, moving more freight and/or passengers by rail would be beneficial to the Environment. Canvey Island in Essex needs another route to and from the A13. Previous discarded option could probably have solved that at the same time."

Mrs Pamela C March
"my interest is that I live in the part of the country that will be impacted by the entrance to the tunnel entrance and you are taking away our life after work environment. After [Redacted] years in this same place with a family home we thought was our forever home we are interested and have been in any changes to the plans which would have and will effect our life in retirement."

Mrs Susan Goodge
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Muriel Cornwell
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Natalie Lewis
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. I feel we should be looking at ways to reduce the dependency on cars in order to reduce congestion. There are many examples of road expansion schemes throughout the UK who’s aim was to reduce congestion have only resulted in an increase in the number of vehicles."

Pam Jones
"I agree that something needs to be done to link Essex and Kent but what we need is another nice clean bridge, not tunneling and harm to wildlife and our landscape. Just build a bridge! 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild space"

Paul Brice
"The impact on traffic and pollution in the Thurrock area. The direction of which traffic is expected to take after the LTC has been completed, particularly in relation to the additional traffic using the Orsett Cock roundabout and A13 due to the lack of direct access to Tilbury docks when travelling North on the new LTC."

Paul Elliott
"The existing route for the new Lower Thames Crossing will not make the slightest difference to the congestion at the Dartford Crossing. The road should be M11, A130 and across the Thames at Canvey. Most of this route is already in place therefore you could reduce costs massively. This would alleviate the need for M11 traffic travelling to Kent even using the M25 reducing the traffic considerably. This would also give the residents of Canvey Island an additional route off of the Island , this has long been requested but always ignored. The current route for the Lower Thames Crossing is not fit for the purpose it supposedly is set to resolve!"

Paul Howard
"I totally understand and objective to the new crossing"

Peter de Klerk
"I am opposed to the routing of the LTC south of the river Thames based on the following: 1 Option C was incorrectly promoted with an unsubstantiated claim for local benefits 2 The plans do not incorporate improvements at Bluebell Hill or along the A2 3 Freight routes have changed since LTC was proposed; traffic simulation needs review 4 The route includes a steep road section, near Chalk, which increases air pollution 5 The air pollution situation at Dartford has changed with rising number of BEV 6 Local opinion was gauged regularly but not incorporated in plans (eg footpath along lower higham road) 7 Chalk aquifer / marshes are ill-suited for this build, chemical fortification is ill-advised"

Ralph A Tebbutt
"My opposition to the Lower Thames crossing is based upon the view that such a crossing as planned will create severe environmental damage that far exceeds the benefits that Will accrue from the crossing. I understand that it will double the amount of traffic coming into Kent but the road infrastructure within Kent will not be altered in any way to accommodate such an increase. Already the road close to where I live has traffic travelling along it brought about by the alternative route to the A2/M2 through the Medway Tunnel. The science involved with Climate change dictates that we need to reconsider the whole of our transport policy which requires a modal change from private car and other vehicle traffic to other modes of public transport especially rail. The Government has cancelled rain improvements (such as extending Elizabeth line to Ebbsfleet) whilst retaining the extremely costly project of the Thames Crossing. There is therefore no justification for this road, it is contrary to any required policy requirement, it is extremely costly, will worsen living conditions for people living on the route and is extremely damaging to the environment the details of which have been clearly laid out."

Robert Goodrick
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Roger Michael Phillips
"A balance must be struck between this development and the usage of surrounding land. Emission levels from passing traffic must be monitored for health and safety. Adequate emergency service levels must be maintained to support this critical infrastructure. Signing and road directions should reflect our proximity to Europe and this development. Road layout to join or leave the infrastructure should be coterminous with existing M25. Development of green spaces around infrastructure must be maintained for the long term. Surrounding road network upgraded to support extra volumes of traffic. Hospital and emergency services should develop usage protocols."

Rosie Clarke
"I have serious concerns about the impact on wildlife and habitats in Essex, including: # Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. # Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. # Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. # Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. # Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Sandra Ashley
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. We have lost an inordinate amount of wildlife and habitat for nature over the last few decades. We need to stop the harm and destruction being caused to so much of our wildlife and landscape now whilst we still have the privilege of having what's left."

Scott Callender
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Sharon Darby
"We have owned 2 Gravelpit Cottages for approx 20 years. We have renovated a derelict cottage into a comfortable dwelling. We are comfortable living here and wouldn't have considered moving. Now we feel so unsettled not knowing what lies ahead. We are in [Redacted] and don't want any upheaval of moving. Our property will be greatly affected by the new Thames crossing. Appart from this the pollution levels in this area will be so bad living here would unbearable. The disruption the deveopment will make to our way of life would make living here impossible. Please consider the feelings of residents whose lives will change so dramatically. Also consider the environmental damage this project will cause."

Simon Johnson
"I am concerned about the following and this is an outline of my points in reference to the application and this is my representation: Pollution, air quality, additional roads congestion, cost benefit ratio of the scheme, embodied carbon, location of the scheme, lack of public transport along this new roads corridor linking Essex with Kent, lack of local roads connectivity with this scheme, safety of this roads programme, the lack of rail freight accessibility along this new linkage, problems with existing local fauna and flora, ecology, prohibition of cyclists, SUDS drainage, the loss of current green space and accessibility, the loss of prime farmland and the cost and magnitude of the project. Additionally I wish to make a representation concerning the ethos and thought processes regarding further road construction which are potentially harmful to society and naturally future generations. Thank you. Simon Johnson"

Stephen Bickford
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Stop the Silvertown Tunnel Coalition
"If built, the Lower Thames Crossing would cause significant induced traffic demand, centred around the M25/LTC/M2 triangle. Expected increase in cross river traffic is around 50%, with the following ill effects. A. Climate 1. The Lower Thames Crossing is incompatible with the UK’s climate targets. It would emit around 6.6m tonnes of carbon in total. Its construction runs counter to the government’s Net Zero Strategy. 2. The UK is falling short of its own targets. Failure to cut transport sector emissions is a national emergency which the LTC would make worse. During construction, the LTC would each year add more than 0.3% of 2019 emissions, at a time when they should be falling sharply. During sixty years of use, the LTC would each year add more than 0.04% of 2019 domestic transport emissions - between four and six decades past the point at which transport sector emissions should be reduced to zero. 3. Research shows that new fossil-fuel-intensive infrastructure will put climate targets further out of reach. That includes roads, for decades, even if optimistic forecasts on electric vehicles are realised. We will cite examples to demonstrate this in our more detailed submission. B. Air pollution Recent research is producing a mass of information on the very serious impact of air pollution on health, especially children’s. The whole new LTC route would fail WHO targets for highly damaging PM2.5 particles. These are emitted by electric as well as petrol/diesel vehicles. National Highways’ own data shows Dartford Tunnel traffic would still be over capacity, and induced traffic round the M25/LTC/M2 triangle will bring more pollution. Certain crucial questions remain unanswered, e.g. on tunnel ventilation and on incidents that cause traffic to try switching crossings. C. Multiple road projects; LTC combined with Silvertown Tunnel Multiple road projects have cumulative impacts. Contributory factors include induced traffic and stimulation of vehicle purchases; all this impacts negatively on emissions reduction. The combination of Silvertown Tunnel and the M25/LTC/M2 triangle would induce people to make travel decisions that are contrary to the requirements of UK policy and targets, leading to a considerable increase in local and longer-distance traffic alongside and crossing the river. D. Opportunity cost Financial and other resources should be put into projects that rapidly reduce transport sector emissions, not the LTC. Nationally, its £8bn+ cost could e.g. help reverse the reduced scope of Northern Powerhouse Rail. Locally, the Thames between Tower Bridge and Gravesend badly needs additional crossings for public transport and active travel. The LTC has no provision for either. Yet these are the forms of transport we must encourage, to meet carbon and air pollution targets."

Sue Mathers
"The cost to local air quality and health with the increased traffic pollution. The increase in vehicle noise. The destruction of many wildlife habitats."

Syed Qutab
"Increase in carbon emissions (around 6.6 million tonnes) Loss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland threatening food security Increase in air and noise pollution, whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5 No provision for cross river active travel, not viable for public transport due to lack of adequate connections Destruction and impacts to homes and communities Concerns about construction impacts"

DTA Transportation Ltd on behalf of Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd
"Tarmac have significant operational plant and consents for development in both the Kent and Essex Areas affected by the LTC proposals. These facilities depend on the efficient delivery of construction materials and building products across the UK. A significant proportion of the deliveries that they make are necessarily by road and therefore additional delays on the network arising from the scheme will have a detrimental impact on those operations. Whilst the LTC proposals will improve network resilience for north/south routes (alternatives to Dartford Crossing and Junction 30 of the M25), Tarmac have significant concerns relating to the impacts the scheme will have on local roads and networks which are shown to experience significant or material increases in traffic flow (and hence delay) but have not been mitigated to any extent. By way of example a specific concern is the A228 corridor. Here the company operate a significant Asphalt and Concrete Plant (Ham Hill) and have planning consent in Snodland (Kent County Council Planning Reference: TM/98/785) for a new Cement Works. That consent was granted by the then GOSE following appeal in November 2001. Whilst the works themselves have not been commenced the consent itself has been implemented by virtue of the implementation of the site access roundabout and associated railway infrastructure. When fully operational the site has the capacity to produce circa 1.4 million tonnes of cement per year to service demand across the south east region. Whilst a significant proportion of this will be exported by rail, the overall traffic generation in peak hours is upto 82 HGV movements per hour. This will all be focused on the A228 and have not been included in the modelling work. Importantly, the Transport Assessment (TR010032/APP/7.9) confirms that there will modest adverse impacts in terms of driver delay on the A228 on this link. There is no mitigation to consider this. In absence of any formal mitigation to resolve this, it would have a material adverse impact on the operation of the site. The absence of a Transport Section in the ES means this impact has not been properly considered in the overall assessment of scheme impacts. This is a flaw in process. The proposed approach to review of strategic highway infrastructure (Examination Document TR010032/APP/7) is a wholly inadequate way to address these impacts and consideration of mitigation to deal with the issue is required prior to determination of the DCO."

Tim Bourne
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites especially those of wintering species that are both nationally and internationally important. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions both locally and nationally, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild and recreational spaces."

Tina Higginson
"There has to be a point when people and the planet come before ‘growth’ and profit. 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Our environment will suffer and as a result we shall too, we are in the midst of a climate crisis with councils left right and centre pledging to netzero yet preposterous proposals such as this keep rising making that an impossibility to stick to. Please do what is right and leave nature alone to recuperate and flourish so that we can too. For every metre of natural habitat we destroy, we are destroying the future for ourselves too."

Trevor Thacker
"I am strongly opposed to the Lower Thames Crossing. In short, the LTC is not fit for purpose as it does not decrease congestion at the Dartford Crossing! National Highways state that the LTC will only reduce traffic by 21% at the Dartford Crossing at opening and by even less as time goes on. Since traffic levels tend only to increase, this initial reduction will soon be negated and the Dartford Crossing will be as congested as it is now, if not more so, and the problem unsolved. The discarded Option A & A14 (expanding the Dartford Crossing) is the only option that actually increases capacity at the Dartford Crossing and this option should be reconsidered and consulted upon. Since the Dartford Crossing will still be over capacity if the LTC opens, there will be no improvement on the traffic situation on local roads. In fact, if there are incidents on the M25 and LTC at the same time, the effect on local roads will be even worse! The LTC will not solve the problems of the Dartford Crossing. Instead it will bring a massive amount of new traffic into the area and will increase pollution levels and lead to destruction of local environment and wildlife and negatively impact lives, communities and homes. All of these negative impacts are unnecessary and simply unacceptable when other less destructive solutions such as Option A & A14 are available. Here is a summary of my main objections: • It does not provide a solution to the problems of the Dartford Crossing eg congestion. • The LTC does not meet scheme’s objectives. • It will actually increase river traffic across the Thames by around 50%. • The LTC will lead to an increase huge increase in carbon emissions. • At a cost of £9-10bn+ the LTC does not represent value for money. Further more it will need further spending to complete side projects not included in the scheme and to actually fix the problems at the Dartford Crossing which the LTC does not solve! • Thousands of acres of farmland will be lost or severely impacted, jeopardizing the UK’s food security. • The LTC will destroy and severely impact: woodland (including ancient woodland and veteran trees), hedgerows and the greenbelt. • There will be a devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, including protected species. • The LTC will cause an unacceptable increase in air and noise pollution. It fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5. • There is no provision for cross river travel by bike, foot, horse etc. Its is not viable for travel by public transport due to lack of adequate connections. • There will be huge destruction and negative impacts to numerous homes and communities. • The construction impacts will be significant on many levels (pollution, carbon emissions noise etc) and will have a deleterious and devastating effect on many peoples lives, homes and communities. • There is a lack of adequate connections - especially when there are incidents."

Velimir Micic
"I am in the favor of the scheme given that south east of London and England has chronic lack of river crossings. As someone who is regularly stuck hours on end at the Dartford crossing which clearly cannot cope for the last 20 years with volume of traffic a relief south at Lower Thames Crossing is much more welcome. Should the initial motorway plans in the 60s avoided the merging of the northern network onto M25 maybe this problem would have been avoided altogether as all the traffic from the north has to use the M25 and given the frequent congestion and time lost on western axis around Heathrow, Dartford will be always a preferred option for anyone travelling from the north to south east of the country and vice versa. London mayors have proposed and scrapped all previous schemes for additional river crossings in south east London. I would be looking forward to Highways England finally introducing and providing a benefit that many have failed to do so before."

Wendy Curtis
"We do not need another crossing. The money for this crossing could be put to better use improving the conditions of surrounding roads."

Zoe Kent
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Akin Mojola
"The importance and necessity of the project to be approved."

Alex Acott
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Amy Mansfield
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites.   Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects.   Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Cathryn McGuinness
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Christine Cliburn
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. I have only lived in the area three years and appreciate the crossing may provide local jobs in construction in the short term, but the environment will suffer for much longer. More roads lead to more cars. Wildlife is getting squeezed into an ever smaller space which is unlikely to be their normal living environment. More cars more health issues."

Debbie Preston-Low
"I am strongly against the construction of the Lower Thames Crossing on four fundamental accounts relating to environmental issues: • The negative impact on community health and well-being through the increase in carbon emissions resulting in air and noise pollution which fails WHO recommendation levels • The destruction and negative impact on homes, communities and heritage • The devastation upon wildlife and habitat, woodland, trees and farmland, hedgerows and greenbelt, some of which would never recover I believe that the construction of this road would be a total waste of over £10bn of taxpayers money. It is morally wrong to enforce a project that is not fit for purpose and will only serve to make traffic problems elsewhere, probably in our local communities. For hamlets such as North Ockendon, already heavily polluted with M25 noise, light and emissions, this project would cause a toxic triangle severely detrimental to good health and well-being."

BTF Partnership on behalf of DeGiorgio Holdings Limited
"INTERESTED PARTY • DeGiorgio Holdings Limited – Inn on the Lake PLOT NUMBERS • 04-81, 04-83, 04-83, 04-89, 04-99, 04-105, 04-108, 04-137, 04-138, 04-139, 04-140, 04-141 REPRESENTATION • Statement of Reasons 4.1 under Annex B Schedule of Negotiations No 246, identifies the engagement between the parties up to the point of submission of the DCO application and its subsequent acceptance by PINS. Whilst the Interested Party recognises the Applicants efforts to enter into a compensation agreement to enable the Inn on the Lake Hotel to continue to operate as a going concern post Project construction and the agreement will seek to mitigate impact on the business during construction, due to lack of construction timetable and detailed design, no progress has been made. • The Interested party requires details as to when access will be restricted to the Property and what actions will be taken to maintain access to this Hotel and Events Centre both during construction and post completion of the LTC. • Details are still required in order to be able to assess the temporary and permanent effect on access arising from the complexities of the utility diversions and the period in which they are undertaken and then combined with the road construction and demolition and subsequent reconstruction of both Brewers Road, green bridge and Thong Lane green bridge. These are highly likely to prevent the hotel and events centre trading for a significant period of time. • On completion of the Scheme, access will continue to be restricted and the Property will be located on the very edge of the new A2/A122 interchange with numerous feeder roads making the Property virtually invisible to passing traffic, which it currently relies on to a degree. The Proximity to the works and the finalised scheme will also diminish the Properties ability to hold events such as weddings etc. • Further clarification is required urgently in order to ensure that the Interested party has the opportunity of providing further input into the detailed design process and commitments are made by the appointed contractor to maintain access at all times. • Utilities – We believe that the Property will be severely impacted by enabling works requiring a large area of the existing car park to be dug up or occupied to divert the high-pressure gas main. These temporary working areas are likely to render the car park that serves the Property unusable for a period of between 12-18 months. Furthermore, the gas diversion appears to cut across and through the main access that serves the Property. • A large Southern Water sewer also may require to be diverted, which will have a further significant impact on both the Property and the business. Further clarification on the requirements for the enabling works is required urgently. • Referring to the Land Use drawings; not only is there an area of permanent acquisition required which will remove a large percentage of the car park, but the area identified for temporary possession of land and permanent acquisition rights encompasses the entire hotel and events venue all of which are likely to have a terminal effect on the ability for the business to continue. As a result, a significant number of jobs will be lost as well as the Interested Party’s ability to continue trading at this property."

BTF Partnership on behalf of Gagg Family
"INTERESTED PARTY • Harlex Haulage Services Limited, J & B Martin (Crayford & Fawkham) Limited PLOT NUMBERS • 03-13, 03-27, 03-39, 03-45, 03-46, 03-47, 03-49, 03-51, 03-53, 03-54, 03-56, 03-59, 03-62, 03-66, 03-67, 03-68, 03-79, 03-82, 03-83, 03-84, 03-85, 03-86, 03-88. REPRESENTATION • Statement of Reasons 4.1 under Annex B Schedule of Negotiations No 371, briefly identifies the engagement between the parties up to the point of submission of the DCO application and its subsequent acceptance by PINS. The Interested Party (Harlex) has requested a Statement of Common Ground to be considered, but the Applicant believes that a Voluntary Agreement and details to be submitted to a Commitments Register would be more appropriate. We would question why a Statement of Common Ground would not be more appropriate. The response has been that they are offering private landowner commitments and a form of voluntary agreement to address various concerns. Provided the agreement and/or commitments are counter signed, they will transfer those internally and contractually to our future contractors to observe. We would ask PINS to address the appropriateness of the Applicant’s proposed actions. • The Interested Party has significant concerns regarding the design of Park Pale Road and the proposed cycleway (3metres wide) as the design will exacerbate the anti-social behaviour that occurs in the locality. The area under the existing Park Pale overbridge will be used as a shelter and refuge point for anti-social behaviour. The Interested Party would like access restrictions from Park Pale to the new cycle path to prevent it being used as a road. The Applicant confirmed that the level of design detail is not yet developed however will take this feedback on board and add it to an internal register to notify contractors of design feedback once appointed. As a design and build Scheme, there is no commitment to address this concern. • Harlex are also concerned about illegal parking on Park Pale and that the Applicant’s proposals for replacement open space and enhanced cycle way will exacerbate this. The Applicant states that they have relayed this concern to KCC previously and will relay again. • Whilst the Applicant is proposing to install a new car park off Thong Lane to accommodate any increase in users of the increased Public Open Space, we understand that the Car Park’s will be a pay and display and so the Public will continue to park illegally along Park Pale Road and will increase the safety concerns. The new Car Park is also too far from the extended POS that crosses directly north of the Harlex haulage yard. • Harlex have requested a continuous curb profile as Park Pale road diverts to provide access to the Harlex yard and the Golf Club to deter people parking and congregating in the T part. No commitment given by the Applicant. • Harlex have proposed a new entrance and exit design. The Applicant confirmed the current arrangement was proposed by Harlex, and accepted by the Applicant, and that this latest change is likely to impact upon other design models (such as open space and woodland mitigation calculations). However, LTC did confirm they will consider and revert. • Harlex requested new gates at the entrance to the Yard and fencing to the northern extent of the new access road to prevent dogs from roaming onto the new Harlex road. The Applicant stated that this is a matter of detailed design. • Harlex also has concerns about the practicalities of vehicles/lorries using the new entrance from Park Pale. • Harlex suggested there would be level issues with ensuring the new access ties into the site. The Applicant stated that the contractors would need to ensure the access ties into the site. • Harlex referred to ownership of the new entrance and exit road. In principle the Applicant are comfortable transferring ownership to Harlex so long as the Applicant reserve the rights they require and also Crichel Down rules don’t apply. • Harlex require an access off the balancing pond road into the field to the east of the yard. Whilst this has been raised on numerous occasions, it does not appear on any drawings. This needs to be agreed and a firm commitment as to its design. • Harlex requested a description of the extent of works the Applicant is carrying out to the southern edge of their site which causes the existing access to be severed. The Applicant is proposing to install a new two lane collector road just north of the A2. All associated works (such as drainage, lighting, earthworks) will also be required as part of the installation of the collector road. • Alongside the new road, there will be a shared use path for cyclists and pedestrians connecting the existing shared use route (south of Harlex) to Park Pale (at the proposed closure). This gives great concern to the Interested Party due to likely escalation of anti-social behaviour and safety concerns due to the interaction with the Haulage Yard. • The Applicant stated that the details of the access to the proposed shared use route, and the route itself, are high-level at present and will be developed at the detailed design stage. The route will be designed using the latest design standards to Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DRMB) and LTN 1/20 Design Guidance, with a likely minimum width of 3m. Vehicle access will be restricted to the shared use area and the comments raised on site by Harlex will be added to the internal register to be considered at the next design stage. • The works described above have the effect of severing the existing Harlex access from Park Pale and therefore the replacement access is required to ensure continued access remains undisrupted. • The Interested Party has been trying unsuccessfully to get double yellow lines both sides from the golf club bridge along Park Pale Road as well as maybe some chicanes to assist with safety concerns. This issue is not only for existing use but also construction traffic for the Scheme. • There is also a significant amount of fly tipping in Park Pale Road as it is a comparatively underutilized. Hence the Interested Party has requested that there should be a substantial set of gates at the junction of the new access road and the existing road to the golf club. • Harlex as well as the residents of Bowesden Lane have suffered from break ins by individuals using 4WD vehicles. A fence and gates would protect against this and protect any tree stock that is planted until it is more mature. • This list is not exhaustive and demonstrates the need for firm commitments in terms of engagement and detailed design."

Gail Farrow
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Gwyneth Jones
"The Lower Thames crossing isn't going to solve the congestion problem. As has been proved, over and over, this kind of intervention just means more and more traffic, and increases congestion. The proposed development will inevitably, right from the start of the works, increase carbon emissions, increase pollution, sever local communities and and have serious negative impact on both the neighbouring Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), plus damaging the livelihood and health of local human communities. The proposal, if enacted, would be a costly (est. 10billion), and damaging waste of money and resources. The Lower Thames and the whole country doesn't need and cannot afford this crossing, not on any terms"

Jacqueline Cooper
"My representation is that the quality of air will be very poor as a result of this tunnel both during construction and with the day to day running of the thing. The Chadwell St Mary part of the tunnel will affect all the wildlife and trees in that area. The proposal as a whole will effectively cut the borough in two making it almost impossible to go any way east of the borough. The tunnel will not solve the problem only make it more attractive to use and will make traffic and pollution worse in the area. This will make Thurrock totally the worst place to live in Essex."

Janie Biegun
"I believe that this project will cause horrendous traffic congestion and emissions of mega tonnes of carbon during the construction process"

Joyce Hill
"Project not fit for purpose nor value for money. Smart motorways not safe. No migration between the 2 crossings for incidents. Dartford crossing would still be over capacity if LTC goes ahead Causing a Toxic Triangle which electric cars will not stop LTC would destroy homes /lives/wild life/habitats/woodland/health with millions of tonnes of cardon emissions"

Judith De St Croix
"I absolutely oppose the construction of the proposed new Lower Thames Crossing."

Kelvin Moon
"I am worried about a number of aspects of this project. The increase in carbon emissions, over 6 million tonnes. The loss of woodland and hedgerows. Some of the woodlands to be destroyed are categorised as ancient. Following on from that the effect this will have on wildlife habitat. There is debate over whether the scheme will even solve the problem it has been designed to tackle and at huge cost of £10bn, the value for money is highly questionable. Impact on the local area during construction, the developers have already shown scant regard for the local area in not bothering to apply for planning permission for there compound at Stifford and having to apply retrospectively on numerous occasions. How can local residents have any confidence they will be respectful in future ?"

Kevin Cox
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites.  Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects.  Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity.Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050.Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Maria Bagnoli
"I wish to object to the lower Thames crossing because of the increase Inthe carbon emissions , at a time when we must reduce our carbon footprint. We should invest in public transport. We need to protect our green spaces for the next generation."

Mr Alan Sanderson
"My representation will be based on the "keeping of promises" to the general public and will particularly look at :- 1) The environmental aesthetics - will be looking to see if the works embrace the landscape. 2) The betterment it offers the community in terms of rambling and cycling. 3) The general management of the works in term of safety and good site management and their impact on the community in general. 4) Make comment if possible to ensure the works show the very best of BRITISH civil engineering."

Mrs Marilyn Going
"I am concerned about the road design around the Orsett Cock roundabout. The plan looks badly designed to serve the people of Grays and of Thurrock to the west. I am also concerned that the building of the road network and the operating of the completed road will seriously impair the air quality for people in Grays and in Thurrock and bring about consequent bad health: we will be encircled by motor vehicles and breathe petrol fumes I believe this route is out of date to serve the ports and industry of Thurrock."

BTF Partnership on behalf of Orsett Showground
"PROPERTY 11.62 ha (28.72 ac) level pasture showground and events space. SCHEME Land-take for construction of the LTC / A13 interchange and diversion of a Gas Main. As Identified in the Applicants numbered document 2.2, Land Plan, Volume C as plots 32-59, 32-63, 32-64, 32-65 & 32-66 IMPACTS 1. Loss of land to compulsory acquisition for road construction and associated impact on area hosting major events in the region. 2. Harm to the viable use of retained land for its intended purpose due to the proposed gas pipeline diversion. REPRESENTATION • Statement of Reasons 4.1 under Annex B Schedule of Negotiations No 699, identifies the engagement between the parties up to the point of submission of the DCO application and its subsequent acceptance by PINS. Whilst the Interested Party recognises the applicants efforts to source replacement land to the east, its configuration would not have assisted the impact arising from both the permanent and temporary land take. • The Interested Party has fundamental reservations about the viability of the use of the retained land during the construction of the project. The Showground needs to be safe and accessible to the attendees to the events in all areas during events throughout the year. The proposed diverted gas main may sterilize the immediate area where a risk is present. The Applicant’s position does not recognise that the impact will also depend on the H.S.E land use planning advice (P.A.D.H.I.) and not solely on the agreed matters between parties. Details of both the sterilisation arising due to the proximity of the proposed high-pressure gas main and details of any easement restrictions has not been forthcoming even though requested on numerous occasions. • The Interested Party requires traffic modelling during construction to ensure that the events field can continue to be used without restrictions. • Detailed design in respect of the re-laying of services that serve the site are required and need to be installed prior to the enabling works relating to the gas main diversion. • Method statements and Risk Assessments are required to be disclosed to be able to mitigate the effect of the works on the events held at the site during construction. • the Interested Party requests that the footpath that crosses diagonally across be moved to the track to the north of the Showground due to the fact that the Showground is losing so much land to the Scheme. This footpath diversion is not currently identified as being reviewed in the Scheme proposals."

Patricia Giddings
"having lived on Riverview park [Redacted] when i was born until 10 years ago i moved to snodland. The tunnel and access roads will decimate the whole of north kent. It will reduce house prices and infrastructure of roads attached to the entrance by the gravesend east turn off to Junction one and two of the M2. I do not believe the planners have researched the gravesend Airport let alone ordinance in the River Thames and areas. It will increase more lorries in the area and traffic right next door to the Riverview Park Estate. It will increase pollution and affect what are green spaces and wild life in the area. These are personal observations"

Patricia Webster
"I wish to object to this proposal on the grounds of nature, health, well being and climate change. The new route will cause a loss of biodiversity the area especially threatening our rare, endangered and protected water voles. The route will further dissect and break up existing habitats causing loss of species in these sites and the links between them. Ancient woodlands cannot be replace-ever. The route will attract more traffic and further contribute to pollutant and CO2 emissions-endangering peoples health as well as going directly against the government’s own target of net zero by 2050. Lastly as a keen walker, and a supporter of the local population, I feel that this proposal will create negative change and spoil the natural beauty and peacefulness of the area."

Pauline Smith
"I am registering as an interested party as the proposed crossing will directly affect our lives. [Redacted] the increased pollution levels will certainly affect him. Also the projected pollution levels still exceed WHO guidelines. Also, with the increase of working from home, traffic levels have fallen. The main problem will still be at Dartford…the proposal named A14 should have been the way forward…correcting the problem at Dartford and thereby eliminating the need for a further crossing, which will destroy Grade A farmland and cut through ancient forests, which CANNOT be replaced, no matter how many trees will be replanted. “Ancient” describes not only the age of trees but the whole ecosystem."

Ronald Simpson
"Concerns about the proposed Chalk Park on the south side of the Thames. This park seems to have appeared on documents and plans around 2020. Prior to that there were proposals to store much of the recovered materials - mainly chalk - for a period of up to 5 years on the southern side. In one document there was reference to approval being required from the Environment Department for such storage. Other proposals over the years were to use the Thames and the railway facilities at Hoo Junction to transport this material to other locations. During visits to public consultations at Cascades Leisure Centre myself and others had questions - usually unanswered - about the following: 1. Who - if anyone had requested this park - bearing in mind Shore Wood Country Park - the biggest such park in Kent - is within a mile or two of the tunnel entrance and has large parking facilities . 2. Who would provide maintenance and upkeep for this park. My understanding is that Gravesham Borough Council has indicated it will not be their responsibility. 3. Is the construction of this park simply a "cheap" way to use the spoil from the workings. 4. At shown on the latest drawings the only access to the park is via the public right of ways - the main one being the one at the bottom of Thong Lane. Even at present people park on Thong Lane - and the pavements - to walk their dogs. Thong Lane is not a wide road and such parking leads to a "single" lane road quite often.There are signs restricting such parking on pavements but the Council does not appear to enforce such restrictions. 5. These public footpaths and others further up Thong Lane have become a "playground" for quad bikes and motor cycles. Residents who have contacted the Police have been advised there is little they can do about such activities even though the local roads are used to gain access to these footpaths. 6. Unfortunately for the LTC project this issue has hit the local papers just before the latest consultations due to people on Thong Lane complaining about land at the closed golf club being used for easy access. It would appear that discussions between the owners of the land and National Highways has not been concluded even though the club closed in August 2022. 7. The Chalk Park would appear to leave a section of land - which has been farmed for many years - "cut off" from other land currently farmed. The most recent GA drawing shows a section of land with Thong Lane on the east side - Rochester Road on the north side - The Park to the south side and the west side "cut off" by the emergency access road for the Tunnel South Portal. If this land cannot be farmed then its future use could be seen as an opportunity for more housing. At present Thong Lane is the end to the urban spread - and the start of the green belt to the east side of Gravesham."

Sheila Dearns
"I have very serious concerns about the impact on wildlife and habitats in Essex, including: Biodiversity loss, when we are already one of the least biodiverse countries in the world. Animals such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects will be adversely affected. The damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites will be irreversible. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. The work will reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. At a time of increasing stress in daily life and the acknowledged benefits of nature to peoples’ mental health it is highly irresponsible to damage yet more of our once beautiful county. It will also generate more traffic and increase CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put even more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Stewart Hammond
"Local resident, will make representation based on negative impact to the local area."

Tracy Ahern
"We 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Alexander Campbell
"My concerns are environmental, the air quality in Thurrock is already way above other areas and this further road network will further pollute and damage the health of our children. We have major road networks and a port surrounding us, how much more pollution can an area take. This development should not be happening and if it is necessary it should not be happening in this area using this route. You are damaging the health of todays children and future generations. You should follow the example of the Welsh Government and stop the Thames Crossing Project due to environmental concerns."

Alice Whitaker
"I have concerns about the impact on wildlife and habitats in Essex, particularly biodiversity loss. The work could seriously impact animals such such as water voles and reptiles, and rare invertebrates. I think the key concern for me is that the project will cause fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites, putting further pressure on the ability of many creatures to thrive."

Andrea Mason
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. * Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. * Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. * Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. * Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. * Current infrastructure is already stretched and unable to cope with teh amount of road traffic in South Essex and North Kent, this crossing will be another excuse to buildmore unsustainable housing. * The Lower Thames Crossing will result in more pollution which is against the UK Governments Net Zero Targets. * The crossing is benefitting the South East and London again at the expense of the North of the UK. * UK Government has shown complete disregard to proper budget control in relation to HS2 and has acted incompetently resulting in escalating costs which now threaten the completing of HS2 in time. Lower Thames Crossing, will also result in the same disregard to public money and much waste which negates the any benefits it would bring."

Angela Rackham
"My concerns are : damage to the local environment Impact on vegetation flora and fauna Emissions generated during construction and Increase in traffic flow Impact of increase road capacity on non motorised road users Noise"

Anna Hilbery
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Anne Morgan
"Bio diversity will suffer. Building extra roads always produces extra traffic. We should be expanding public transport rather than encouraging more cars. Light pollution and effect on wildlife"

Carolyn McAllister
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Chris Gillham
"This scheme is beyond insane. Apart from the FACT that the DfT, NH and the Treasury cannot find a single reason in research or argument, why road building can be economically beneficial, there can be no plausible reason for thinking that it can be compatible with poilcies, aims and international commitments to reduce carbon emissions. How we cannot afford to pay public servants like nurses, the money to retain enough of them to maintain the services, and yet fork out the obscene level of funding represented by this scheme, is beyond the wit of rational people to explain."

Christine Scott
"This is yet another NH scheme that does not address the real issues and will only generate more traffic leading to further environmental damage and reduced food security. At a time of increasing evidence and effects of climate change the government shouldn’t be generating more traffic and emissions during and after construction. Nor does the scheme represent value for money. Why not follow the approach of the Welsh government?"

Clare Clemens
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

David Chivers
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

David Ketley
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

David Whybrow
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Eamonn Mooney
"I feel that this scheme will not deliver on its objectives and at the same time leave us residents with increased traffic locally, increased air pollution in this area and will cause residents to suffer years of work being carried out and decreasing the value of our property. The vast costs involved could be put to better use in the current climate rather than encouraging increased road use."

Francis Wilson
"The Lower Thames Crossing junction with the A13 - “spaghetti junction” - is planned to be one of the very biggest road junctions in Europe used by thousands of diesel and petrol trucks and vehicles daily - day and night. Yet, there will be no - that’s no - sound barriers. The idea that because sound waves move up and down this renders them useless is wrong. There must be as much deflection and absorption of combustion noise as possible. Especially across the north east boundary since the prevailing wind is mostly from the southwest. The calm quiet stillness overnight of the countryside must be respected."

Gerry Larkin
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. We really ought to start putting nature first!"

Ginny Still
"To Whom it may Concern, 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Greg Gilmore
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Hanne Lene Schierff
"I am of the firm belief that the proposed crossing would not solve the problems suffered due to the Dartford Crossing It will lead to increased and unnecessary demand – increase in cross river traffic (around 50%), increase in carbon emissions (around 6.6 million tonnes), waste of over £10bn+, not value for money, false economy as other spending would be needed as direct result Loss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland threatening food security Destroy and impact woodland (inc ancient woodland), trees (inc ancient/veteran), hedgerows, greenbelt It will have a devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected species Increase in air and noise pollution, whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5 Destruction and impact on homes and communities, not least negative impacts of the construction phase These are the main reasons for my objections and for seeking representation"

J Montgomerie
"I OBJECT to the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. There is a climate emergency. We must lower our carbon emissions. In the UK about 27% of its carbon emissions come from transport, of which the overwhelming amount is from road traffic. In my view this government must cancel ALL planned new roads with immediate effect, as it's well-known that new roads cause 'induced demand' and simply create even more traffic in the long run. If its aim is to reduce congestion it will fail, as has been seen in many well-documented cases here in the UK and world-wide. If you build roads to cater for more vehicles, you will get more vehicles. This project will cause a massive increase in carbon emissions during construction and afterwards during its daily use, and the planet simply cannot afford that. As it is we're not on course to reach the necessary reduction by the declared date, so building more new roads makes absolutely no sense. Also increased traffic will lead to worse air pollution, leading again to the UK failing to meet its own objectives in improving air quality. Undoubtedly the construction of this scheme will cause the loss of wildlife habitats which the UK can ill-afford either, having been named as the most wildlife-depleted country in Western Europe. Money allocated to this scheme would deliver far greater economic benefit if it were to be spent instead on active travel programmes and public transport. This is where the greater need is."

J Tester
"The impact during the works on my quality of life and on my property in respect of the following *noise light and air pollution, significant traffic congestion,potential interference with mobile and television reception * ability to access my property in a timely manner * additional information required about the proposed works buildings that could block light and overlook my property, and impact of lorries accessing and leaving works site * additional information after completion about the impact of changes to my property not currently commented upon in published documents"

Janet Middleton
"The junction with M25 will cause a more dangerous section of the motorway that has problems on many occasions already, also the crossing has now been changed to an A road whereas it is really a smart motorway without a hard shoulder, already a point of safety contention."

John Bradley
"I live within 50 yards of the new feeder road which would go from the orsett cock roundabout to the A13 and the new feeder road that will go from the A13 to the new lower thames crossing road both which will run straight past the front of my home at RM16 3BA this will bring massive amounts 0f pollution and noise dirct to my family and Highways England don't seem to think that there will be any impact on my Family Home which is rediculase as one of the roads will be elivated, on top of that the new major Lower Thames Crossing road is within about 200 yards from my family home and if the road did get the go ahead it Would not solve the problems suffered at the Dartford Crossing and no one would use it as an alterative route if there were delays as it would add a massive extra distance to a journe,it would Increase carbon emissions (around 6.6 million tonnes) and be a Waste of over £10bn+ of tax payers money and i am sure the total cost will be millions more, there would be Loss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland threatening food security and would Destroy and impact woodland , hedgerows, greenbelt have devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected species, Increase air and noise pollution as the whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5. I have lived at my current address for over 20 years and this new road would destroy our home, in the latest plans Highways england have said that they need to move the water main that runs infront of out house into our garden and take wrights over part of our garden and to make it look better in planning they have called our garden an unmade track which is total lies."

John Edwin Burgess
"At a time when the UK population is faced by the existential threat to our children & grandchildren from the declared Climate & Ecological Emergency none of our scarce funds should be used for new personal transport infrastructure projects & especially those devoted to mostly single occupancy automobiles. Any spare funds should be channeled into integrated public transport networks powered by renewable energy. On this basis."

John Hughes
"In more detail later under the headings of: Climate emergency Pollution Ecology Cultral heritage Population."

Karen Liff
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Kerry Creamer
"I/We 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduce the remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Kevin Coombes
"I am concerned that the current plans for a new Thames crossing will Have a negative impact on wildlife and the environment."

Kirstie Tomlin
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Lucy Marum
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Lynette Adams
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Lynne Henderson
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces"

Michael Vine
"I was initially excited by the long overdue crossing further down from overloaded Dartford. When was that- 2008? Essex and Kent deserved better. When the Orsett roundabout connection was dropped and then the Tilbury Docks and services areas too were got rid of, there seemed no rhyme or reason and NH gave scant regard to other parts of the scheme as well.THEY became out of touch and disillusioned me on what might have been. MP [Redacted] summed up my change of mind, and [Redacted] for Basildon South weighed in too making the case that the scheme is no longer fit for purpose etc. Personally we should just use our initiative to rectify an inadequate bottleneck of a crossing and complete the M25 in situ. NB the Tunnel Boring Machine Jill Viner will be redundant in the summer after completion of the Silvertown Tunnel which sounds good to reuse (if it were to be available!) to me. [Redacted]"

Mikala Malpass
"My dad [Redacted] and lives near the Tilbury area so I am concerned about increased air pollution. Thurrock already breaches the WHO recommended safe levels of air pollution/particulate matter. I don't want my dad's life span shortened by this project (which by Highways England's own estimes will still leave the Dartford Crossing over capacity) and there being more deaths like young Ella Kissi-Debrah who was the first person in the UK to have air pollution on her death certificate as the high levels in Lewisham contributed to her fatal asthma attack ten years ago."

Naomi Doran
"The new Thames crossing would be the biggest road project since the M25. It would be astonishing if this project were to go ahead considering we are in the midst of an environmental catastrophe. This road development will encourage more cars, vans, lorries and traffic, pumping more air pollution and climate-damaging emissions into our environment. Its a mega-carbon emitting project that this capital does not need. Politicians need to wake up and take their blinkers off."

Peter Le Warne
"I have several reasons to object to the LTC project, Primarily as it will not alleviate congestion at Dartford Crossing. The expansion of Dartford Crossing capacity should be taking place instead. My other objections are as follows: I believe there will be an increase in traffic growth leading to more carbon emissions, and combined with the construction emissions (see below), the total carbon emissions from the scheme would be at least 6.6 million tonnes over its lifetime making this the biggest emitting scheme ever proposed (7.3.37 of the Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report); Also I object to the increase in emissions from its construction by around an additional 2 million tonnes (at least, as National Highways are obscuring the real total with offsetting schemes), all within the critical fourth carbon budget when we need to achieve 68% reductions in UK carbon emissions by 2030 under our legally binding commitments under the Paris Agreement; not solve the congestion at the Dartford Crossing, as claimed by National Highways. The Dartford Crossing would be still be over capacity if the LTC were built. So the LTC fails to meet its own objectives. would impact on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its setting; The LTC will create an increase in air pollution and noise pollution which will have direct and indirect impacts on humans, the AONB, SACs, SSSI and endangered species; Also there will be an increase in severance of local communities and the rights of way network. I also object due to the cost to taxpayers of at least £10 billion when the country cannot afford this. The LTC is not be good value for money with a benefit-cost-ratio (BCR) of only 1.22 (meaning for every £1 spent, there will only be £1.22 of economic benefits) so is "Low" value for money according to government guidelines."

Peter Still
"The Welsh government has stopped many road developments and is reviewing those that are left as they now require evidence that they will provide value and not cause more environmental harm. This is based on indications that new roads tend to increase the amount of traffic and so fail to meet their objectives of reducing congestion and pollution. I believe that National Highways and the Transport Secretary should consider this commendable action by Wales and emulate it. I wish to know if the estimated reduction in CO2, particulate and other emissions claimed for the LTC take into account the emissions caused by the ENTIRE construction process, including mining aggregates, transporting raw materials, construction and transport of equipment, disposing of spoil, modifying and after completion restoring surrounding land and services, the effects of prolonged disruption of existing infrastructure such as local road networks, transporting those working on all aspects of the process to and from work? If so, how many years will it take for the benefits to balance these effects? Are timescales and budgets realistic? According to Construction Industry News, 69% of major UK civil engineering projects are at least 10% over budget and some can be twice or more as much. Is the LTC the right solution to the right project - or is HE stuck with an unachievable target in trying to relieve congestion at the Dartford Crossing rather than improving the road network?"

Robin Walter
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Roger Stocker
"I am against the proposal. It will generate additional motor traffic and go against the governments net zero targets."

Samantha Bradbrook
"I’m an interest party and this will have a major effect in our standard of living whilst being built. My property is in the boundary to the concrete plant and access road is very close to our land. This will have a major effect on traffic and pollution to me, my husband and children. The constant traffic of heavy good vehicles moving around our property will impact our lives for years, let alone the impact of the road it’s self when up and running. No consultation with us, when we have tried to discuss we get fobbed off and told at various meetings that they cannot confirm the impact and someone will be in touch, they never get back. The impact to the environment and increase in emissions whilst being built and the overall cost of this part of the road that will not reduce traffic to the bridge is a travesty"

Sarah Meyer
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Stephen Ayley
"i lived at (REDACTED) which is some 100mtrs from the path of the proposed crossing , i actually sold my house and moved 5 years a go after it was announced , Gravesend East was the going to be the preferred route , i was honestly distraught at the thought of ten years of upheaval . i have walked these fields you will destroy for many decades and to be honest i will never understand why you would build this tunnel on the widest part of the river at such expense (whilst the country is on its knees). The Golf course southern Valley has now been shut for several months , the motorbikes and anti social behaviour is in abundance on the once lovely golf course , the fence is down they drive over it at night shooting at the foxes , why could you not start the Tunnel from the A2 . If you have ever walked the Golf Course and fields to Shorne country Park you would realise the Beauty that will be destroyed and the impact on our wild life. Gravesend east will soon be in a triangle of pollution what ever way the wind blows ,from the south the A2 to London , the M25 and the proposed link .. Our country side and wild life can not sustain this Link road , we are but a small island and it seems you are just moving traffic jams from one place to another .. I have only had one meeting with Kent Highways in which i was told Dartford was not a option due to pollution , i then asked " how long will it take to build " ten years at least i was told , but will we not be all electric then ?? so lets go back to Dartford and all the Millions you will save the tax payers by not going under the river at its widest part , compulsory purchase all the houses around the Dartford crossing and plant trees around it . i know none of this will mean a lot to you , but there are people who love our area where you wish to build on and will never understand why in the grand scheme of things you cant tunnel straight from the A2 by Clayland woods ..."

Steve Kelley
"1:- We already live in close proximity to the most heavily polluted road in North Kent the crossing will only add to this. 2:- Our house will be very close to the approach road and noise levels are aready high from the A2. 3:- This tunnel will not relieve the problems at Dartford crossing."

Teresa Holdstock
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Tom Brodie
"I am á concerned owner of a cottage built in the 1800s , I’m of an age where most people don’t really take notice 69yrs +, this road will spoil ( for me anyway) living in this village . As a teenager born and bred in SouthOckendon I aspired to live in this tranquil village , I managed to do this in 2001 and hope to end my days here . I believe the upheaval of this road going through Orsett will impact my life to the point I will consider moving , it’s not just the end result of the road but the traffic going through the infrastructure already in place whilst the building of this road is taking place , basically you are going to spoil my last years here in Orsett, most probably the last years of my life , I’m only one voice but thanks for that !!! I’ve worked 50yrs as a precision engineer, inside a factory all of those years now you are going to spoil the tranquility of this village I call home , I’ve earnt my bit of peace and quiet, don’t you think ?"

Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells Bicycle Users Group
"Since its foundation in 1994 National Highways (formerly Highways England and before that the ‘Highways Agency’) has been widening roads, building new roads, constructing bypasses, and building underpasses and crossings citing as the main benefit the ‘easing of congestion’. In not one case has this objective been achieved. The new or widened roads may bring short-term relief, but in the long run they invariably lead to an increase in traffic either on the new or widened roads themselves, or on the feeder roads and downstream roads, or both. The Lower Thames crossing will be no different. Motor traffic is similar to a gas. It expands to fill the space available. If you doubt this reflect that in the early 1960s we had approximately 6m motor vehicles on the roads of Britain. Over the next 60 years National Highways (formerly Highways England and before that the ‘Highways Agency’) built or expanded numerous roads to ‘relieve congestion and improve the reliability of journey times’ (to use the standard mantra). Result: we now have over 40m motor vehicles on our roads, and they are 20-25% larger. There simply isn’t room for them. They clog up our villages, towns and cities. They disturb the peace and quiet of the countryside with their bulk and speed and noise and danger. They are parked all over the roads, and even the pavements, last refuge of the pedestrian. Furthermore, their manufacture, whether they are powered by fossil fuels or electricity, takes a heavy toll on the environment. They pollute the atmosphere with particulate matter,. They kill or maim 30,000 people a year. Construction of the Lower Thames crossing is incompatible with the UK’s 2050 net-zero Co2 emissions target, its 'Decarbonising Transport Plan' and the principles of 'Gear Change' (all official government policy). To go ahead with it would be totally irresponsible. National Highways is currently a key player in the motor lobby, dedicated single-mindedly to the sale of ever more oil, concrete, aggregates, tar, steel, rubber and above all cars. But it doesn’t have to be like that. Rather than pursuing the failed policies of the past by building more roads, and causing further damage to the environment and to society National Highways could instead be investing in the infrastructure required to realise the aims of Decarbonising Transport Plan and Gear Change – high quality cycleways and pedestrian routes. Not leisure cycling, but serious infrastructure to enable the 70% of all journeys in the UK which are 5 miles or fewer to be made on foot, by bike or by public transport. National Highways is currently worried that England will follow Wales in banning all new roads. Its bosses and employees are worried about their jobs. But with the exercise of imagination, boldness and a willingness to re-purpose their skills they have plenty to offer in redesigning our environment around people and communities instead of cars. We have 50 years of catching up to do to rival our more enlightened friends in the Netherlands and in Denmark. National Highways, time for a change of culture; a culture of vision, leadership and responsibility towards your fellow citizens, their children, their grandchildren and the planet."

Trevor Andrew March
"I feel I need to be kept up to date as I will be severely disrupted if the lower Thames Crossing should be granted permission,as I have lived in East Tilbury my whole life &have currently lived in my present house for the past 47 years. I have opposed the development since it was first proposed as,in my opinion, for the 8-10years it will take to construct & the huge cost, estimated at 8-4 billion pounds which hasn't changed since the start which we all know is a severe underestimation , will not be fit for purpose."

Adam Holloway MP
"The Lower Thames Crossing (“LTC”) was originally conceived as a scheme to alleviate congestion at the Dartford Crossing. In this aspiration it will be a failure. Cars and freight will always gravitate to Dartford because the M25 runs through it: National Highways' own modelling makes it clear that even with the new crossing Dartford will operate over capacity. The solution to the problems caused by the undersized tunnels at Dartford is to improve that crossing, either with a bridge for northbound traffic, or a very long tunnel separating the long-range traffic, preserving the existing crossings for local traffic. The LTC has been seized upon by local Councils as a driver of economic development. This is a worthy ambition, but the application should not proceed until the Dartford traffic issue has been addressed; failing that costs of this project should be considered as only one part of the bill for dealing with the traffic in the region and its value for money must be assessed accordingly. The LTC will not provide resilience to the road network and, indeed, its effect will be to increase pressures locally. In the event of an incident at Dartford the northbound M25 lacks the capacity to take diverted traffic, and the A2 westbound on to the LTC will have only one lane. Congestion on the M25 will mean cars will exit at junctions 3 and 5 seeking a route to the LTC. The A2 will become gridlocked with disastrous implications for traffic around Gravesend, roads through Thong, Shorne, Cobham and Sole Street becoming rat-runs. With no meaningful mitigation scheme the travel time savings identified as a benefit of the project are thus limited. This must be addressed. I have serious concerns about capacity issues on the proposed A2/M2 link. The original plan to link the A2 and M2 with three lanes in each direction has been changed to only two lanes in each direction. This is inadequate for the likely volumes of traffic and will be a disaster. This must be addressed. In short, this costly and poorly thought-out project represents misery for the people of Gravesham both during the building phase and after. Whilst some of the increased costs represent inflation, the largest part represents the costs of building the tunnel and the vast spend on environmental mitigation. This scheme is an inherently expensive option and, having lost sight of its original objectives, it does not represent value for money. It is also a project that was born in another era – pre-pandemic and pre-net zero. The UK is on the edge of level five autonomous electric vehicles and HGV platooning represents a better way to increase freight capacity on the road system. From a 2023 perspective any number of the other options consulted on would better serve our environmental agenda and financial circumstances. Proceeding with this project represents an inter-generational betrayal of epic proportions."

Amy Cole
"I am AGAINST the crossing for the following reasons: - the increase in air pollution… we are already one of the most polluted areas in the country. There has been no evidence shown how the pollution will NOT increase with the increased works and traffic. - the noise pollution - the light pollution - the loss of green belt/wildlife"

Andrew Briffett
"I have 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Ann Batson
"it is vital that ALL environmental issues are addresed"

Anne Pease
"I have serious concerns about the carbon emissions that will be emitted. My main concern is how this will affect children and how this will impact their health in the future. Allied to this is loss of the green belt. Less land, less healthy open spaces! Am also concerned how the actual construction and will compromise local conditions with regard to noise, dirt, dust and local traffic."

Bob Baker
"Impact on local environment around Marling Cross. Impact on traffic movement in the same area. Safety in the proposed tunnels."

Brenda Andrews
"I am concerned that there will be damage and fragmentation of habitats for wildlife and want to see ancient woodlands protected. The construction of HS2 highlighted the disregard shown for mature trees. Agricultural land should also be protected so that we do not rely on imported food. The construction of this crossing will generate more traffic increasing CO2 emissions which directly conflict the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050"

Holland Land and Property Ltd on behalf of C H L Mott & M Mott
"Our client, C H L Mott & M Mott (the farming partnership of the Mott Family) object to the Lower Thames Crossing proposals which would result in a loss of existing farmland and a significant effect on their business viability, blight on existing property and create significant impacts on the planned growth of East Tilbury (East Tilbury being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Inspectorate during examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and its impact on existing and future land use at East Tilbury. Our client further considers that designation of the extent of land for these purposes is an excessive use of compulsory powers; (iii) Alternative locations within the LTC order limits for ecological mitigation purposes that would mitigate loss of farmland and future development land; (iv) Impact on existing Pulverised Fly Ash extraction and land restoration operations; (v) Impact on phasing of future development land proposals at East Tilbury and Linford; (vi) Basis of justification for additional public rights of way (‘NMUs’) and loss of land for these purposes; (vii) The proposal for permanent acquisition of freehold title as the basis for delivering new NMUs; (viii) Severance of land and implications for access north and south of Station Road as a consequence of proposed new NMUs; (ix) The potential for unauthorised access to adjoining land from proposed new NMUs and the means by which this is prevented; (x) Visual and noise impact mitigation on existing properties at Goshems Farm and future mixed-use growth at East Tilbury; (xi) Unspecified terms of new utility easements/wayleaves and issues of sterilised land for future development and effect on existing farming operations; (xii) Impact on access to land and property outside of the LTC development boundary during and post construction; particularly in respect of land west of the LTC northern portal alignment; (xiii) Designation of land in our client’s ownership as replacement common land where this common land is not currently in our client’s ownership; (xiv) Access provisions to land outside of the LTC development boundary and access to existing jetty facilities on the River Thames frontage during and post construction; (xv) Impact of temporary water supply pipeline from Linford to northern portal works area on future land use; (xvi) Justification for Tilbury Fields as amenity land post construction; (xvii) Tilbury Fields design and potential issues of landslip as a consequence of proposed level of landfilling proposed in this location from tunnelling operations; (xviii) Risk of contamination transgressing from former landfill to the east of the LTC alignment during and post construction of northern portal; (xix) Impact of the proposed East Tilbury/LTC junction layout and connectivity to future development at East Tilbury and use of land west of the LTC alignment post construction."

Christine Barnes
"(Redacted) I would like to express to you that these planned works have caused me great worry and uncertainty due to the potential damage that could be caused to my fragile property. I am hesitant to agree to any such excavation works within my sub soil boundary, as my property relies on this substrate. Removal of this material, without correct support, could cause my property to collapse. I am still awaiting assurance that all steps will be taken to safeguard my property, however, I have only received various generic response letters which does not resolve all of the concerns I have. It must be noted that this property is possibly one of the most vulnerable structures that will be within immediate proximity to these proposed excavation works, and therefore needs to be dealt with tentatively. I do appreciate the need for these works to proceed, and I am not averse to them, but, I do need a personal detailed response from you to explain how any excavations will be conducted directly outside of my property, as well as a method of works plan. Once I have received these, I will then pass them onto my appointed structural engineer for perusal. I have provided a contact number, however, I would prefer all communication to be documented, so, therefore I would greatly appreciate an emailed response. Thank you in advance for your attention. Regards Christine Barnes"

Cuxton Parish Council
"Cuxton Parish Council have participated in the consultation events even though Cuxton lies outside the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) Project area. However, its proximity to the A2 and M2 will mean it will still be adversely impacted by the Project. Currently, when there is an accident or other issue that results in traffic queuing on the A2 and M2, vehicles use the Cobham exit on the A2 to travel down Cobhambury Lane, Warren Road and Bush Road to join the A228 at Cuxton. These roads are primarily rural, with Bush Road running through the centre of Cuxton village. Another frequent scenario occurs when there are traffic delays on the M20 and drivers seek an alternative route in order to continue their journey by utilising the A228 to enter Cuxton and continue onward to the A2/M2 via either Cobham or the A228 Sundridge Hill, depending on what the quickest route their devices advise. The main issues of concern are: 1. Increased traffic during construction when the number of lanes on the A2 will be reduced to facilitate the construction traffic. This will have a major impact on the volume of traffic using the rural roads between Cobham and the A228 at Cuxton. 2. The predicted increase in the volume of traffic (LMC, 7.16, 7.1.34) will result in queuing in the south arm of the Bush Road/A228 junction. This junction is not signalised and so the length of the queues at the junction may effectively block access to the main residential area of the village. If this happens on street parking and queuing traffic will eventually prevent vehicles entering the village with serious consequences for northbound traffic on the A228. 3. Increased traffic through the village, past the schools, nurseries and shops has the potential to increase the risk of accidents, particularly those involving pedestrians and cyclists. 4. Adverse noise and vibration effects on Sundridge Hill, Pilgrims Way and Rochester Road (LMC, 7.16, 7.1.42). 5. Damage to the highway along Bush Road as a consequence of increased traffic. 6. Air pollution in the vicinity of Cuxton will exceed the annual mean NO2 AQS objective even in the absence of the Project (LMC, 7.16,7.1.44)."

David Bowling
"i am a resident i have worries about 1. house prices in my area 2.incursion on the green belt 3. air quality and the impact on health of youngsters and people already with life limiting issues 4.light and noise pollution 5.impact of quality of life in the area with the inception of other proposed developments in such matters of entry and egress into the area and severance limitations on blue light services"

Denise Mulchrone
"I am very concerned by the LTC Proposal for a number of reasons. I grew up in Kent and have lived and worked in Essex. I now live in Bedford but spend 50% of my time in Chalk caring for my mother. I am in walking distance of the area ‘selected’ for route C so have knowledge of the area including public footpaths. The LTC is not required or wanted. It will not resolve congestion at the Dartford crossing. I believe it will cause additional congestion between the existing Dartford Crossing and the proposed route C. The plans, as I see them, do not account for accidents/emergencies and the resulting backlog of vehicles crossing Kent and Essex. Obvious rat runs have been ignored. Environmental impact on marsh lands both south and north of the Thames. Compulsory and temporary purchase of land positioned directly adjacent to areas of significant interest results in further eroding marshlands and surrounding farmland. Known negative impact on woods and farmland and habitat. E.g., plans to bulldoze through Shorne Woods in Kent were only altered after protest. Pollution levels exceed guidelines and are bound to increase. Financial planning; costs will increase. Scope of project is bound to grow.; just as it did with the original Dartford tunnel, requiring additional land for tunnels and emergency access etc. Financial ambiguity of what aspects are funded by whom. Little communication of resulting impact of local road budgets due to major replans of roads and emergency planning contingency. Plans and details have been continuously vague and ambiguous. End results not openly documented/discussed e.g., chalk pits, housing developments and positioning of heavy machinery in north Kent (Chalk, Gravesend). Behaviours of contractors to date. On a very small level, I have had to follow up a contractor who closed gates to public footpaths with a sign saying “Warning, Guard Dogs in Use”."

Holland Land & Property Limited on behalf of E and K Benton Limited
"Our client, E and K Benton Limited, objects to the Lower Thames Crossing (‘LTC’) proposals which would result in a loss of existing farmland, blight on existing property and, in the absence of a strategic masterplan for the areas affected, create further impacts on the planned growth of South Ockendon (South Ockendon being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Planning Inspectorate during Examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that should recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and flood compensation land purposes at South Ockendon and a lack of engagement at a detailed level in this respect; (iii) Additional public rights of way (‘NMUs’) and loss of land for these purposes. (iv) The proposal for permanent acquisition of freehold title as the basis for delivering new NMUs including over existing farm access tracks; (v) Proposed NMUs (FP136/BR219, South Ockendon) and the potential for unauthorised access to adjoining land and the means by which this is prevented; (vi) North Road, South Ockendon NMU design and proposal including lack of discussion on alternative routing proposed on the existing North Road (as proposed by our client); (vii) Use of Medebridge Road (South Ockendon) for construction purposes, its impact on the existing users and the future use of Medebridge Road to support development at South Ockendon and post construction legacy; (viii) Post construction access to farmland under/over LTC alignment adjacent to the Mardyke and tree planting location issues; (ix) Design specification for overbridges for large farm machinery and HGV use on new alignment of FP136, South Ockendon; (x) Attenuation works to mitigate the visual, noise impacts and air quality issues during construction and on existing properties at South Ockendon Hall Farm and future mixed-use growth at South Ockendon; (xi) Environmental mitigation works in respect of ‘The Moat’ at South Ockendon Hall Farm; (xii) Unspecified terms of new utility easements/wayleaves and issues of sterilised land; (xiii) Impact on access to land and property outside of the LTC development boundary during construction; (xiv) That Medebridge Road and the Moat area are revisited in terms of the permanent land and access requirements as currently the proposals will likely prohibit future development in this identified growth area; (xv) That Medebridge Road and its junction with the A13 should be upgraded to a major haul road permanently (i.e. not just during the construction period)."

Holland Land & Property Limited on behalf of E W Ballard Holdings Limited
"Our client, E W Ballard Holdings Limited, objects to the Lower Thames Crossing proposals which would result in a loss of existing farmland and a significant effect on their business, blight on existing property and create further impacts on the planned growth of East Tilbury and Linford (East Tilbury and Linford being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Inspectorate during examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and its impact on existing and future land use at Linford; (iii) Alternative locations for ecological mitigation purposes that would mitigate loss of farmland and future development land; (iv) Impact of land take at East Tilbury and Linford and the significant impact of LTC on the current extant planning application ref. 16/01232/OUT – a significant failing of the DCO submission in this respect is best summarised by the fact that the extant planning application has not even been referenced in 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendices Appendix 16.1 Long List of Developments; (v) Visual and noise impact mitigation on existing properties at Ashlea Farm and future mixed-use growth at Linford with reference to the general LTC alignment and the realigned Muckingford Road and associated approach ramps; (vi) Access track proposals for the proposed balancing pond immediately north west of Ashlea Farm; (vii) Use of redundant section of existing Muckingford Road abutting Ashlea Farm post construction; (viii) Unspecified terms of new utility easements/wayleaves and issues of sterilised land for future development and effect on existing farming operations; (ix) Impact of temporary water supply pipeline from Linford to northern portal works area on future land use."

Holland Land & Property Ltd on behalf of EA Strategic Land LLP
"EA Strategic Land LLP has an interest in land to the north-east of South Ockendon (within Thurrock Borough) and is currently working with neighbouring landowners and local stakeholders to bring forward a sustainable urban extension, incorporating a mix of uses including housing, community, health and employment uses, through the plan-making process. The site is capable of accommodating a residential led development of up to 2,600 new homes. However, it is important the route and any associated impacts on the local highway network do not prejudice future housing growth; in particular at South Ockendon (being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Inspectorate during examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that should recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) Use of Medebridge Road (South Ockendon) for construction purposes, its impact on the existing users and the future use of Medebridge Road to support development at South Ockendon and post construction legacy; (iii) Impacts of increase in noise and air quality issues during construction and once the Lower Thames Crossing is operational and how this may prejudice the growth and regeneration of South Ockendon; (iv) The requirement for a permanent right of access to South Ockendon Hall Farm from the LTC safeguarded area to the east; (v) The new footpath connection at North Road, South Ockendon should be removed, as it serves no suitable purpose and prejudices free flowing movement into the masterplan area of the proposed sustainable urban extension; (vi) That Medebridge Road and the Moat area are revisited in terms of the permanent land and access requirements as currently the proposals will likely prohibit future development in this identified growth area; (vii) The intended use of Mollands Lane, South Ockendon; (viii) That Medebridge Road and its junction with the A13 should be upgraded to a major haul road permanently to adoptable standards (i.e. not just during the construction period) with reference to the Hatch Report ‘LTC Mitigation Benefits’ (published February 2021) ; (ix) That the local road network is appropriately assessed to determine the extent of impacts as a consequence of both construction and operational traffic; (x) The passive provision be provided within the South Ockendon area to facilitate the wider growth aspirations of Thurrock Council, local residents and delivery stakeholders."

Gail Chard
"I wish to oppose the new crossing because it will put myself and othet residents in the middle of 2 motorways and at least 3 busy 'A' roads which currently are polluting our air"

Gordon Goldsmith
"Hope the government runs out of money for this project and opt for a cheaper option, this is the most expensive option and still won't end congestion at the present crossings, they need to look at clearing hold ups quicker"

Ian Pirie
"The proposal will cut a piece of land from Thames Chase forest (the Pike Lane site). I am a regular user of this site. There will be a new road creating more noise. I object to the removal of established woodlands - these cannot be replaced with any amount of 'mitigation.' Also, traffic along the A127 will increase, with associated noise and pollution. The whole area will be polluted by fumes from vehicles. It is probably too late to make this point: nowhere have rail routes been considered to ease traffic at Dartford."

Irene Hoysted
"I am worried about the level of air pollution that will be raised in the local area. I am also concerned about the increase in the level of local traffic that will affect local lanes and roads."

ITS TECHNOLOGY GROUP LIMITED
"20th February 2023 To whomever it concerns, We would like to notify you that the company formerly known as NextGenAccess Ltd (NGA) is now known as ITS Technology Group Ltd. Due to an acquisition in the last fourth quarter in 2022. The areas that this project will affect are: NGA/ITS has network within the south Essex area, that will be impacted due to the Lower Thames Crossing project. The network affected carries live traffic within its cables serving multiple customers. The areas affected will require NGA/ITS to move its infrastructure, temporarily to support the project works and replace once the project works are complete. Please accept this as a submission of our interest /representation. Kind Regards Pal Dehal Ops Cordinator Operations | ITS Technology Group (Redacted) ITS TECHNOLOGY GROUP LIMITED 6600 CINNABAR COURT DARESBURY PARK WARRINGTON WA4 4GE Company Registration: 08786229"

James Keith William GARDINER
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Register now"

Jan Davis
"We are in a cost of living and climate crisis. This project will waste over £10bn on a scheme that will not meet the government's Net Zero Strategy (NZS) to reach net zero by 2050. The NZS and the Transport Decarbonisation Plan (TDP) are not on track according to the Climate Change Committee, and this project will simply undermine the huge task of meeting the net zero target. The approach taken to justify this scheme is based on wishful thinking and not scientific evidence. The tools are available to the Highways Agency to carry out a proper assessment of carbon emissions but they have failed to use them as intended. In particular, the approach does not comply with the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 which requires the cumulative impacts of the project, and associated projects, to be fully taken into account."

Kent Invicta Chamber of Commerce
"The Kent Invicta Chamber of Commerce fully supports all the aspects of the Lower Thames Crossing."

Kieran Dyer
"Given the current cost of living crisis, monetary decay of funding across public schemes, sectors and investments. It begs the question, how can a project, estimated to cost in the region of £10bn – minimum, be justified when the use of such funds could be reassigned to more critical and vulnerable sectors? Following the Welsh Governments recent decision to scrap all major road-building projects, it should be a matter of similar action. For the act of scrapping such a scheme not only would allow for investing in alternative modes of transport, such as rail, bus, walking and cycling projects, which works towards the reducing carbon emissions and supporting a shift to public transport, it also saves on monumental costs, which no doubt will spiral as the project grows or intensifies. This has a two-fold benefit, by reinvesting in greener alternative transport modes, it not only meets the demands of the local population it also works towards reducing carbon emissions. There is quite simply not enough evidence to suggest that A) this is and will be a “green project” B) the cost and budget will not fluctuate and swell given the economic factors we are facing C) Prove beneficial for the local population impacted by this project. Furthermore, the total lack of information that has been made available is astounding. I work in the road construction industry and Highways England have not even come close to achieving a accessible and just consultation. On several occasions for instance, my own road, where I live has failed to have received any information other neighbours have received concerning matters on the LTC. Despite being contacted there has been no effort to rectify this matter. There scale of this project fails to identify the needs of the local populace, no heed has been paid to locals, with the local knowledge of roads who have state time after time about the inadequate connections and viable alternatives, especially should incidents occur on the route. There will be instances where you will be forcing HGVs through villages. You are not giving like-for-like alternatives, further to this, you are encouraging increased traffic flow through small villages and towns as a means to get onto the LTC and come off, rendering these places to nothing more than crowded, polluted rat runs. You can used Orsett as an example, investigate the impact on such a village. Regards, Kieran Dyer"

Leo Borwick
"I am opposed to further major expansion of the road network at a time of climate emergency."

Linda Jones
"The effect on the environment. Disruption of day to day activities. Pollution"

Lindsey Squire
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Lisa Payne
"1)the increased amount of traffic that the proposed scheme will generate leading to increased air and noise pollution. The increase in the carbon emissions breach safe regulations . 2) the destruction of ancient woodland and ssssi’s. 3) the proposed scheme does not address the issues at the dartford crossing which is the reason a new crossing was proposed in the first place 4)the cost"

Lynda Townend
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

MAG
"London Stansted is the third busiest airport in London and the fourth busiest in the UK. Prior to the pandemic it served 28 million passengers a year and has now recovered over 90 per cent of those volumes, making it the fastest recovering major airport in the UK. The airport serves a wide catchment across the East of England and the wider Southeast. The airport is also a major employer in Essex and strong driver of regional growth. Before the pandemic, it supported 23,300 jobs and GVA of £1.9bn. We rely on safe and efficient road infrastructure to provide our passengers and employees with predictable journeys to and from the airport. In addition, London Stansted is one of the country’s most important airports for cargo, relying on the road network to move goods and support UK trade. The Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) is a welcome measure to reduce congestion on the Dartford Crossing which contributes to delays in passenger and freight trips to and from the airport. More broadly, we support new infrastructure investment that spurs regional economic growth to create a more affluent catchment. For example, the LTC would open up new markets for local businesses based in Essex and help them grow. Finally, we are pleased to see the LTC has been designated as a pathfinder project to explore carbon neutral construction and help the UK reach net zero by 2050. We understand that operational emissions from the scheme will be largely mitigated by the increased penetration of low emissions vehicles."

Holland Land and Property Ltd on behalf of Margaret Ockendon
"Our client, Margaret Ockendon, objects to the Lower Thames Crossing proposals which would result in a loss of existing farmland and a significant effect on their business, blight on existing property and create further impacts on the planned growth of East Tilbury and Linford (East Tilbury and Linford being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Inspectorate during examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and its impact on existing and future land use at Linford; (iii) Alternative locations for ecological mitigation purposes that would mitigate loss of farmland and future development land; (iv) Impact of land take at East Tilbury and Linford and the significant impact of LTC on the current extant planning application ref. 16/01232/OUT – a significant failing of the DCO submission in this respect is best summarised by the fact that the extant planning application has not even been referenced in 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendices Appendix 16.1 Long List of Developments; (v) Visual and noise impact mitigation on existing properties at Ashlea Farm and future mixed-use growth at Linford with reference to the general LTC alignment and the realigned Muckingford Road and associated approach ramps; (vi) Access track proposals for the proposed balancing pond immediately north west of Ashlea Farm; (vii) Use of redundant section of existing Muckingford Road abutting Ashlea Farm post construction; (viii) Unspecified terms of new utility easements/wayleaves and issues of sterilised land for future development and effect on existing farming operations; (ix) Impact of temporary water supply pipeline from Linford to northern portal works area on future land use."

Marj Powner
"I expect to see a detailed assessment of the impact of carbon emissions from this scheme and an understanding of the alternative (more sustainable options) explored to meet the scheme objectives. The scheme will result in the loss of thousands of acres of farmland, threatening food security for future generations. There will also be an impact on nature's recovery, with the destruction of woodland (including ancient woodland), trees (inc ancient/veteran), hedgerows, resulting in a devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected species. This cannot, therefore, be considered to be a sustainable development. I believe the scheme will result in significant induced traffic and will, of course, increase air, noise and light pollution."

Holland Land and Property Ltd on behalf of Matthew William Ockendon
"Our client, Matthew William Ockendon, objects to the Lower Thames Crossing proposals which would result in a loss of existing farmland and a significant effect on their business, blight on existing property and create further impacts on the planned growth of East Tilbury and Linford (East Tilbury and Linford being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Inspectorate during examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and its impact on existing and future land use at Linford; (iii) Alternative locations for ecological mitigation purposes that would mitigate loss of farmland and future development land; (iv) Impact of land take at East Tilbury and Linford and the significant impact of LTC on the current extant planning application ref. 16/01232/OUT – a significant failing of the DCO submission in this respect is best summarised by the fact that the extant planning application has not even been referenced in 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendices Appendix 16.1 Long List of Developments; (v) Visual and noise impact mitigation on existing properties at Ashlea Farm and future mixed-use growth at Linford with reference to the general LTC alignment and the realigned Muckingford Road and associated approach ramps; (vi) Access track proposals for the proposed balancing pond immediately north west of Ashlea Farm; (vii) Use of redundant section of existing Muckingford Road abutting Ashlea Farm post construction; (viii) Unspecified terms of new utility easements/wayleaves and issues of sterilised land for future development and effect on existing farming operations; (ix) Impact of temporary water supply pipeline from Linford to northern portal works area on future land use."

Mel Flaxman
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. We can’t keep overlooking the impact we are having because we need to alleviate traffic pressures. There will never be enough roads to achieve this so instead efforts should be focused on better transport cleaner lorries and putting life back in high streets rather than retail parks."

Holland Land & Property Limited on behalf of Melville Hamilton Lowe Mott
"Our client, Melville Mott, owner of land and property at Goshems Farm, East Tilbury, objects to the Lower Thames Crossing proposals which would result in a loss of existing farmland and a significant effect on his business viability (including the farming partnership of C H L Mott & M Mott), blight on existing property and create significant impacts on the planned growth of East Tilbury (East Tilbury being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Inspectorate during examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and its impact on existing and future land use at East Tilbury; (iii) Alternative locations within the LTC order limits for ecological mitigation purposes that would mitigate loss of farmland and future development land; (iv) Impact on existing Pulverised Fly Ash extraction and land restoration operations; (v) Impact on phasing of future development land proposals at East Tilbury and Linford; (vi) Basis of justification for additional public rights of way (‘NMUs’) and loss of land for these purposes; (vii) The proposal for permanent acquisition of freehold title as the basis for delivering new NMUs; (viii) Severance of land and implications for access north and south of Station Road as a consequence of proposed new NMUs; (ix) The potential for unauthorised access to adjoining land from proposed new NMUs and the means by which this is prevented; (x) Visual and noise impact mitigation on existing properties at Goshems Farm and future mixed-use growth at East Tilbury; (xi) Unspecified terms of new utility easements/wayleaves and issues of sterilised land for future development and effect on existing farming operations; (xii) Impact on access to land and property outside of the LTC development boundary during and post construction; particularly in respect of land west of the LTC northern portal alignment; (xiii) Designation of land in our client’s ownership as replacement common land where this common land is not currently in our client’s ownership; (xiv) Access provisions to land outside of the LTC development boundary and access to existing jetty facilities on the River Thames frontage during and post construction; (xv) Impact of temporary water supply pipeline from Linford to northern portal works area on future land use; (xvi) Justification for Tilbury Fields as amenity land post construction; (xvii) Tilbury Fields design and potential issues of landslip as a consequence of proposed level of landfilling proposed in this location from tunnelling operations; (xviii) Risk of contamination transgressing from former landfill to the east of the LTC alignment during and post construction of northern portal; (xix) Impact of the proposed East Tilbury/LTC junction layout and connectivity to future development at East Tilbury and use of land west of the LTC alignment post construction."

Mike Stringer
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Holland Land and Property Ltd on behalf of Mrs Antoinette Schatzmann
"Our client, Antoinette Schatzmann, objects to the Lower Thames Crossing (‘LTC’) proposals which would result in a loss of existing farmland, blight on existing property and, in the absence of a strategic masterplan for the areas affected, create further impacts on the planned growth of South Ockendon (South Ockendon being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Planning Inspectorate during Examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that should recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and flood compensation land purposes at South Ockendon and a lack of engagement at a detailed level in this respect; (iii) Additional public rights of way (‘NMUs’) and loss of land for these purposes; (iv) Proposed NMUs (FP136/BR219, South Ockendon) and the potential for unauthorised access to adjoining land and the means by which this is prevented; (v) Use of Medebridge Road (South Ockendon) for construction purposes, its impact on the existing users and the future use of Medebridge Road to support development at South Ockendon and post construction legacy; (vi) Attenuation works to mitigate the visual and noise impacts on existing properties at South Ockendon Hall Farm and future mixed-use growth at South Ockendon; (vii) Environmental mitigation works in respect of ‘The Moat’ at South Ockendon Hall Farm; (viii) Impact on access to land and property outside of the LTC development boundary during construction; (ix) The requirement for a permanent right of access to South Ockendon Hall Farm from the LTC safeguarded area to the east; (x) That Medebridge Road and the Moat area are revisited in terms of the permanent land and access requirements as currently the proposals will likely prohibit future development in this identified growth area; (xi) That Medebridge Road and its junction with the A13 should be upgraded to a major haul road permanently (i.e. not just during the construction period);"

Mrs Lynne Fish
"I strongly object to this scheme as it is not good value for money, it would not solve the problems of the Dartford Tunnel but will induce traffic, has no adequate connections for public transport, would increase noise and air pollution (the whole route fails WHO-10 targets for PM 2.5) and most important to me it would needlessly destroy wildlife habitats including ancient woodland and good agricultural land (where we should be growing food). What is the point of areas having designations or wildlife protection legislation if they are to be ignored every time National Highways wants to create more road space and thus induce more traffic? Predict and Provide was a failed policy and yet thirty years on, it is still being used to destroy our one planet, during a declared CLIMATE EMERGENCY!"

Ms M J Jenkins
"I am very concerned about this scheme's anticipated negative impact on biodiversity and landscape, and its potential to generate pollution and increase CO2 emissions. The Thames Estuary & Marshes is internationally important for wildfowl and birds of prey. RSPB Shorne Marshes is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Ramsar wetlands site. The Kent Downs is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I'm concerned that the destruction, disturbance, noise and increased lighting at night brought by the Crossing will cause, in all these supposedly protected areas: - biodiversity loss, ie of water voles, reptiles and rare insects; - upsets to breeding, feeding patterns and communication for bats, birds and insects; - damage to and fragmentation of habitats including ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, hedgerows; - a huge reduction in the wildness, tranquility and beauty of the landscape. If the Crossing is built, associated and future developments will continue to put additional pressure on the wildlife and landscape that is left. The Crossing will generate more traffic with resulting increases in air & noise pollution and CO2 emissions. The route fails to meet the WHO interim target for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) of 10 micrograms per cubic metre. The anticipated increase in CO2 emissions of around 6.6 million tonnes brought by the scheme directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050."

Holland Land and Property Ltd on behalf of Mulberry Strategic Land Limited
"Mulberry Strategic Land Ltd has a significant interest in land at East Tilbury and Linford (within Thurrock Borough) and is currently working with neighbouring landowners and local stakeholders to bring forward a sustainable urban extension, incorporating a mix of uses including housing, community, health and employment uses, through the plan-making process as part of Thurrock Council’s principal strategic growth locations (as referenced in the LTC DCO Submission 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendices Appendix 16.1 Long List of Developments) Our client, Mulberry Strategic Land Ltd objects to the Lower Thames Crossing proposals as currently proposed where these create significant impacts on the planned growth of East Tilbury and Linford. Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Inspectorate during examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and its impact on existing and future land use at Linford; (iii) Alternative locations for ecological mitigation purposes that would mitigate loss of farmland and future development land; (iv) Future development land proposals at East Tilbury and Linford and the impact of LTC on the phasing of development; (v) Visual and noise impact mitigation on existing properties and future mixed-use growth at Linford; (vi) Unspecified terms of new utility easements/wayleaves and issues of sterilised land for future development and effect on existing farming operations; (vii) Impact of temporary water supply pipeline from Linford to northern portal works area on future land use; (viii) The Tilbury Junction or an alternative means of incorporating local connections and linkages should be incorporated into the Lower Thames Crossing proposals to maximise the potential of the scheme to contribute to the wider economic objectives for Thurrock, South Essex and the Thames Estuary; (ix) Impact of land take at East Tilbury and Linford and the significant impact of LTC on the current extant planning application ref. 16/01232/OUT – a significant failing of the DCO submission in this respect is best summarised by the fact that this extant planning application has not even been referenced in 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendices Appendix 16.1 Long List of Developments; (x) The A13/A1089 junction arrangement and facilitation of better local connectivity and reduced pressure on the local road network; (xi) LTC should provide objectives for providing regenerative benefits to the residents of Thurrock and, in particular, East Tilbury and Linford; (xii) Further consideration should be given to the cumulative effects. This should include the partnership-based objectives of The Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA); the growth options that form the basis of the emerging Thurrock Council Local Plan and, more specifically, those “live” planning applications that are currently moving through the planning system."

Naomi Eckersley
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

NHS Kent and Medway
"NHS Kent and Medway wishes to work with the Lower Thames Crossing team to minimise the identified impacts on the environment and human health created by the development of the new road including healthcare provision for the workforce, their families and the existing and emerging resident population NHS Kent and Medway wishes to ensure that the Lower Thames Crossing programme shall secure all the proposed environmental and human health impact mitigations as the submission proposes to ensure that existing and future residents living adjacent to the new route in Kent and its junctions with the A2 do not suffer adverse impacts from: • construction of the new road causing dust, noise, vibration and severance of local connections between communities and with recreational areas • the impact of a large construction workforce and their families on local health services on available capacity • the impact of construction related illnesses, both physical and mental, on health services across the home areas of the workforce, their families and the existing population within Kent • the impact of the new traffic flow on air quality, noise and vibration • the impact on air quality from the new traffic flow especially during periods of congestion on the new road or on existing roads due to the opening of the road on both road users and residents. Furthermore, NHS Kent and Medway seeks to ensure that the mitigations put in place by the Lower Thames Crossing programme are funded by the programme into the future and properly maintained for a period of at least 50 years or until the issues cease to require mitigation. The programme has identified issues that have not been fully mitigated and represent an ongoing health impact on residents of Kent and Medway. Therefore, NHS Kent and Medway seeks an ongoing contribution to funding health services to respond to the impact of these unmitigated impacts for a period of 50 years or until the issues are fully mitigated."

Nick Macnab
"Dear Sir/Madam I am deeply concerened that the lower Thames crossing will lead to the destruction of habitats in Essex. Fragmentation and shrinking habitat is aready leading to the loss of biodiversity and rare creatures and plants. Amongst these are mature and ancient woodlands. You cannot repace these like for like or offset them with replanting Once they are gone thats it. The noise and light pollution is just as destructive as the enevitable increase in emissions."

Patricia Wykes
"As I live in an area which is going to suffer greatly if this tunnel goes ahead, I appreciate being able to complete this form and therefore put forward my reason and additional reasons for being against it."

R Lingham
"I visited the recent display at Cascades' Gravesend. Personnel were quite helpful, but I wish to comment on wider issues. Whilst the proposal has been modified in respect of the area immediately around the entrance, the potential exists - in the event of diversions on main access roads - for other areas to be significantly affected. Wrotham Road, being a principal link between the M(& A)2/M(& A)20, would become heavily trafficked: although designated A class, there is a significant presence of schools, local shops, community facilities and residential areas on this road, which is - in parts - narrow and winding, and thus unsuited to further increase in heavy traffic, as experienced from the present level built up over the last 20 years or so. I accept that (partial) by-pass is not likely to be viable, but some restrictions/equivalent measures in the event of diversions would be essential quality for of air/life."

Raymond Hill
"I wish to register my objection to the Lower Thames Crossing Scheme. I consider the proposal to be inappropriate during the climate emergency and that the money would be far better spent on improving public transport options. The proposals will inflict unacceptable damage on the natural world and increase air and noise pollution. It appears unlikely the scheme will relieve traffic congestion, it may actually increase it. Its the wrong scheme in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Rebecca Fricker
"As a resident of Essex, I have serious concerns about the impact the Lower Thames Crossing will have on wildlife and habitats in Essex, including those identified by wildlife protection groups such as: - Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. - Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. - Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. - Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. I am also very aware that building more roads and tunnels has been proven to generate more traffic, rather than alleviate existing issues, with a subsequent increase in CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050."

Rita Bateman
"Total apposing the plan"

Rob Sibley
"The proposed river crossing is extraordinarily expensive and the wrong solution for traffic congestion at the existing Dartford crossing. Congestion at the Dartford crossing principally occurs for Northbound traffic through the tunnels. Southbound traffic over the bridge generally flows smoothly. Northbound congestion is partly caused by convoys of fuel tankers being escorted through the tunnel whilst other users are stopped. Also, the west tunnel is narrow. Therefore a solution focusing on Northbound traffic should be developed. Examples might include - Government policy is to phase out the use of petrol and diesel for vehicles and so by the time the proposed crossing is operational, these fuel tankers may not be in use. - However if new infrastructure is deemed essential then cheaper solutions to that proposed might include a new fuel pipeline below the Thames and associated tanker facilities on the south side of the river. Alternatively, an additional northbound tunnel at Dartford. In addition - Traffic congestion caused during the construction phases of the proposed massive A2 junction is not acceptable. - Traffic rerouting from the Dartford crossing/M25/M20 corridor to the proposed tunnel/A2/Bluebell Hill junction/M20 route will increase traffic congestion at the already overloaded Bluebell Hill junction. - Local access around the proposed A2 junction is not acceptable with for example, access to/from Shorne Woods country park far inferior to current arrangements."

Rupert Pitt
"I visit a relative in Tilbury. i quote these objections from the Thames Crossing Action Group. I hope to supply more of my comments in more detail. I thank you for the interest you have shown in my application. 1. It will not solve the problems suffered due to the Dartford Crossing 2. it will increase traffic demand – increase in cross river traffic (around 50%) 3. Increase in carbon emissions (around 6.6 million tonnes). 4. Waste of over £10bn+, not value for money, false economy as other spending would be needed as direct result 5. Loss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland. 6. Destroy and impact woodland (inc ancient woodland). 7. Devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected species. 8. Increase in air and noise pollution, whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5 9. No provision for cross river active travel, not viable for public transport due to lack of adequate connections 10. Destruction and impacts to homes and communities 11. Doesn’t meet scheme objectives."

Holland Land & Property Limited on behalf of Sally Trussler
"Our client, Sally Trussler, objects to the Lower Thames Crossing proposals which would result in a loss of existing farmland and a significant effect on their business, blight on existing property and create further impacts on the planned growth of East Tilbury and Linford (East Tilbury and Linford being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Inspectorate during examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and its impact on existing and future land use at Linford; (iii) Alternative locations for ecological mitigation purposes that would mitigate loss of farmland and future development land; (iv) Impact of land take at East Tilbury and Linford and the significant impact of LTC on the current extant planning application ref. 16/01232/OUT – a significant failing of the DCO submission in this respect is best summarised by the fact that the extant planning application has not even been referenced in 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendices Appendix 16.1 Long List of Developments; (v) Visual and noise impact mitigation on existing properties at Ashlea Farm and future mixed-use growth at Linford with reference to the general LTC alignment and the realigned Muckingford Road and associated approach ramps; (vi) Access track proposals for the proposed balancing pond immediately north west of Ashlea Farm; (vii) Use of redundant section of existing Muckingford Road abutting Ashlea Farm post construction; (viii) Unspecified terms of new utility easements/wayleaves and issues of sterilised land for future development and effect on existing farming operations; (ix) Impact of temporary water supply pipeline from Linford to northern portal works area on future land use."

Samantha Quill
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Samantha Zoe Constance Brant
"Essex & Southend NEED MORE green spaces, that are allowed to be natural, coastlines that are NOT damaged by us to further decline the other life that lives, and has the RIGHT to live on this planet. We must keep our RESPECT for the fauna & flora that we share this HOME with. Do NOT allow this selfish scheme to continue. It it UTTERLY disgusting that people put ease of access over an already over built area Proples mental and physicsl health DEPEND on a more natural enviroment!!!!!!!!"

Shirley A McCarthy
"The proposed Lower Thames Crossing would not deliver the congestion reduction but would increase, in both quantity and distribution, the pollution problems it claims to reduce."

Holland Land & Property Limited on behalf of The Antoinette Schatzmann Discretionary Trust
"Our client, The Antoinette Schatzmann Discretionary Trust, objects to the Lower Thames Crossing (‘LTC’) proposals which would result in a loss of existing farmland, blight on existing property and, in the absence of a strategic masterplan for the areas affected, create further impacts on the planned growth of South Ockendon (South Ockendon being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Planning Inspectorate during Examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that should recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and flood compensation land purposes at South Ockendon and a lack of engagement at a detailed level in this respect; (iii) Additional public rights of way (‘NMUs’) and loss of land for these purposes; (iv) Proposed NMUs (FP136/BR219, South Ockendon) and the potential for unauthorised access to adjoining land and the means by which this is prevented; (v) Use of Medebridge Road (South Ockendon) for construction purposes, its impact on the existing users and the future use of Medebridge Road to support development at South Ockendon and post construction legacy; (vi) Attenuation works to mitigate the visual and noise impacts on existing properties at South Ockendon Hall Farm and future mixed-use growth at South Ockendon; (vii) Environmental mitigation works in respect of ‘The Moat’ at South Ockendon Hall Farm; (viii) Impact on access to land and property outside of the LTC development boundary during construction; (ix) The requirement for a permanent right of access to South Ockendon Hall Farm from the LTC safeguarded area to the east; (x) That Medebridge Road and the Moat area are revisited in terms of the permanent land and access requirements as currently the proposals will likely prohibit future development in this identified growth area; (xi) That Medebridge Road and its junction with the A13 should be upgraded to a major haul road permanently (i.e. not just during the construction period)."

The Faversham Society
"Given the doubts recently expressed by the professional engineering institutions together with several transport economists about the appraisal method used to justify the scheme, to proceed with construction would be unwise. Time savings are not effective indicators of the real costs and benefits, and they are based on assumptions about the way traffic will grow over the lifetime of the tunnel that post-Covid, may no longer hold. The savings are likely to be short-term, and a significant proportion will be consumed by road vehicles travelling further, or making new journeys that do not necessarily support the economy. Given more road space with higher speeds or less congestion, users travel further and the traffic load spills over into other roads nearby, which discourages active travel, compromises health, and increases urban sprawl. Such trips will add to congestion costs in future years, and having been baked into the demand pattern they will be difficult to reverse. On the other hand, the costs will accrue indefinitely. At a time when the national budget is under strain, the project amounts to the largest single infrastructure scheme undertaken in the UK in recent years. There will be unacceptable loss of wildlife habitat, and Independently of any traffic growth, the construction process itself will release 2 million tonnes of carbon. This conflicts directly with the Climate Change Act, which commits the UK government to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050."

Holland Land and Property Ltd on behalf of The Linford Land Group
"Our client, The Linford Land Group (the consortium of Ockendon family members who own land at Linford) object to the Lower Thames Crossing proposals as currently proposed which would result in a loss of existing farmland, blight on existing property and create significant impacts on the planned growth of East Tilbury and Linford (East Tilbury and Linford being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Inspectorate during examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and its impact on existing and future land use at Linford; (iii) Alternative locations for ecological mitigation purposes that would mitigate loss of farmland and future development land; (iv) Impact on phasing of future development land proposals at East Tilbury and Linford; (v) Visual and noise impact mitigation on existing properties at Ashlea Farm and future mixed-use growth at Linford; (vi) Unspecified terms of new utility easements/wayleaves and issues of sterilised land for future development and effect on existing farming operations; (vii) Impact of temporary water supply pipeline from Linford to northern portal works area on future land use; (viii) The Tilbury Junction or an alternative means of incorporating local connections and linkages should be incorporated into the Lower Thames Crossing proposals to maximise the potential of the scheme to contribute to the wider economic objectives for Thurrock, South Essex and the Thames Estuary; (ix) Impact of land take at East Tilbury and Linford and the significant impact of LTC on the current extant planning application ref. 16/01232/OUT – a significant failing of the DCO submission in this respect is best summarised by the fact that the extant planning application has not even been referenced in 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendices Appendix 16.1 Long List of Developments; (x) The A13/A1089 junction arrangement and facilitation of better local connectivity and reduced pressure on the local road network; (xi) LTC should provide objectives for providing regenerative benefits to the residents of Thurrock and, in particular, East Tilbury and Linford; (xii) Further consideration should be given to the cumulative effects. This should include the partnership-based objectives of The Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA); the growth options that form the basis of the emerging Thurrock Council Local Plan and, more specifically, those “live” planning applications that are currently moving through the planning system."

Holland Land & Property Limited on behalf of The Owners of Norrskken, Station Road, East Tilbury
"Our client, David Mott and Karin Misra, object to the Lower Thames Crossing proposals which would result in a loss of existing farmland and a significant effect on their business viability, blight on existing property and create significant impacts on the planned growth of East Tilbury (East Tilbury being one of the principal strategic growth locations of the developing Thurrock Council Local Plan). Furthermore, we submit the following outline of the principal issues on behalf of our client, on which we will wish to make further representations to the Inspectorate during examination: (i) The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex; in particular engagement with landowners to consider how the LTC project could benefit the wider community and mitigate the impact and loss of farmland and land earmarked for future growth has been limited; (ii) The designation of land for ecological mitigation and its impact on existing and future land use at East Tilbury. Our client further considers that designation of the extent of land for these purposes is an excessive use of compulsory powers; (iii) Alternative locations within the LTC order limits for ecological mitigation purposes that would mitigate loss of farmland and future development land; (iv) Impact on existing Pulverised Fly Ash extraction and land restoration operations; (v) Impact on phasing of future development land proposals at East Tilbury and Linford; (vi) Basis of justification for additional public rights of way (‘NMUs’) and loss of land for these purposes where we consider that there is no statutory obligation to improve routes for walkers, cyclists, and horse riders in the statutory process; (vii) The proposal for permanent acquisition of freehold title as the basis for delivering new NMUs; (viii) Severance of land and implications for access north and south of Station Road as a consequence of proposed new NMUs; (ix) The potential for unauthorised access to adjoining land from proposed new NMUs and the means by which this is prevented; (x) Visual and noise impact mitigation on existing properties at Goshems Farm and future mixed-use growth at East Tilbury; (xi) Unspecified terms of new utility easements/wayleaves and issues of sterilised land for future development and effect on existing farming operations; (xii) Impact on access to land and property outside of the LTC development boundary during and post construction; particularly in respect of land west of the LTC northern portal alignment; (xiii) Designation of land in our client’s ownership as replacement common land where this common land is not currently in our client’s ownership; (xiv) Access provisions to land outside of the LTC development boundary and access to existing jetty facilities on the River Thames frontage during and post construction; (xv) Impact of temporary water supply pipeline from Linford to northern portal works area on future land use; (xvi) Justification for Tilbury Fields as amenity land post construction; (xvii) Tilbury Fields design and potential issues of landslip as a consequence of proposed level of landfilling proposed in this location from tunnelling operations; (xviii) Risk of contamination transgressing from former landfill to the east of the LTC alignment during and post construction of northern portal; (xix) Impact of the proposed East Tilbury/LTC junction layout and connectivity to future development at East Tilbury and use of land west of the LTC alignment post construction."

Amanda Dockrill
"I have lived in Linford for nearly 40 years. I moved here ro be in a rural area but within a community. I walk as a hobby within my local area and love the wildlife, and the fairly peaceful environment we have here. The thought of a huge motorway tearing through this countryside is heartbreaking. This area has suffered so much in the past with lorries, excavations, filthy dangerous roads to drive on, now once again we will suffer, but in a much more invasive way. The pollution, noise, dust, and vibration brought on from the building of this monstrosity in our villages is devastating. Please please think again before allowing this to go ahead, the pollution here is already high, and people suffer from asthma and breathing difficulties. Please don't exacerbate it for the sake of this carbuncle."

Andre Hewitt
"As a member of Essex Wildlife Trust I have concerns about the plans for the Lower Thames Crossing for the following reasons: • Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. • Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. PLEASE ENSURE YOU CONSIDER THESE ESSENTIAL POINTS WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION."

Andrew Baker
"Waste of tax payers money - creating more traffic chaos and destruction."

Andrew Davies
"I have taken an interest in the project from early days and would love to see it completed and enjoy using it. I say this as someone who has lost hours in heavy north-bound traffic on the Dartford crossing approach."

Antony Hughes
"I have grave concerns about the proposed LTC and its ability to ease the congestion at the existing Dartford crossing, current figures show it will not ease the existing crossing traffic levels enough and leave it still over capacity. The impact this project will have on the environment is so great 6.6m tons of carbon make it one of the largest polluting road projects ever, when Thurrock already suffers from some of the highest pollution in the country do we need to suffer for such a small return? This project will be built mainly greenbelt land through farmland which is currently producing food, through fenland these flood plains protect us from flooding ,through woodland including ancient woodland which protect local wildlife which will have to be relocated. This project will bring chaos to the local communities along the route during the construction phase with road closures and construction traffic. I myself do not know if I will be able to live in my own home during construction I have been advised by NH there will be times when I won't be able access my own property, I live on the development boundary so cannot sell to anyone, only NH at 30% below market value, this is if my property survives the construction phase as my home is an old cottage (redacted) ."

Strutt & Parker on behalf of Bellway Homes Limited
"Relevant Representations on behalf of Bellway Homes Ltd with regards to Land North of South Ockendon: Further to the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) Consultations, which our client Bellway Homes Ltd has provided extensive representations to, we are registering their holding objection to the LTC proposals, as shown in the designs that were submitted as part of Highways DCO application. Bellway Homes Ltd has previously responded to various consultations objecting to aspects of the LTC proposals as they relate to South Ockendon and requested further information. As previously advised, the LTC has potentially significant impacts upon the delivery of housing on the land to the North of South Ockendon. The land being promoted by Bellway Homes is situated to the West of North Road and to the North of West Road. The Western boundary abuts the railway line to the east of South Ockendon. Through the emerging Local Plan Thurrock Council have identified South Ockendon, including the land over which Bellway Homes has an option, as having potential for large scale strategic growth comprising approximately 10,000 homes. The land over which Bellway has an option could deliver a significant number of these, however due to the LTC severing the option site Bellway may now only be able to deliver approximately 1,000 homes and approximately 20 acres of employment land. There could be a further reduction in the number of homes delivered within Bellway's Option due to the impact of noise generated by the LTC if this is not sufficiently mitigated. In addition to the concerns summarised above our client is concerned regarding the proposed permanent acquisition of land along North Road, South Ockendon to the north and south of the proposed bridge and the proposed new footpath connection at North Road which could prejudice the delivery of new housing and commercial development that could create employment for local people. We also remain unclear what some of the land is specifically required for and what the potential impacts on the delivery of housing in this area could be. The majority of the concerns raised by Bellway Homes Ltd with respect to the Local Refinement Consultation and Community Impacts Consultation remain outstanding. Accordingly, we have produced a letter providing a detailed summary to Bellway’s concerns which will be emailed today to Sarah Collins (Head of Land, Property and Compensation for the Lower Thames Crossing) to give National Highways further opportunity to work with Bellway and provide assurances, where possible, to help alleviate them. This forms part of our ongoing discussions with National Highways. A copy of said letter can be obtained by emailing: (Redacted) Given the scale of new information that has been submitted with the DCO application that has not previously been shared during the consultation process, Bellway’s technical specialists are still reviewing all documentation and plans. We reserve the right to raise other matters during the DCO process. Yours faithfully, Oliver Lukies (Redacted) Surveyor Strutt & Parker For and on behalf of Bellway Homes Ltd"

Bertie Ramsden
"I believe the project is not in the interest of the local community which has registered its strong objection. The project is not needed and does not meet cost benefit criteria."

Brian Young
"The effect on the local area and the negative effect the crossing will have on local house prices. Also the health of population with more cars and lorries crossing the Thames"

Bumblebee Conservation Trust
"Bumblebee Conservation Trust would like to remain as an interested party in the Lower Thames Crossing development. The areas currently proposed to be affected by the development form part of a vital area for populations of several rare and scare S41 bumblebee species. This includes the Shrill carder bee Bombus sylvarum, one of England’s rarest bumblebees, whose range is now limited to five populations in the UK one of which is the Thames Estuary with the LTC directly bisecting its range in Essex and Kent. For further information about Shrill Carder Bumblebee please refer to the Shrill Carder Bee Conservation Strategy 2020-2030 (Redacted) and the Shrill Carder Bee knowledge review (Redacted)"

Lambert and Foster Ltd on behalf of David Attwood
"Representations submitted on behalf of David Attwood – Farm Business Impact ? The loss of land at Harp Farm for compensatory habitat creation, approximately 81.9 hectares, challenges the financial viability of the farming business, N&D Attwood. Fixed overheads will not reduce but be spread over a smaller area, severely impacting profitability. ? The profitability of N&D Attwood relies on the return from the arable enterprise. Disregarding land that is rented in, it offering no long term security of tenure, the land included in the DCO application amounts to approximately 20% of the arable area farmed. ? Approximately 72.3 hectares of the 81.9 hectares is at Harp Farm, one of two main holdings that are together ring fenced. The economic impact felt as a consequence of the loss of land at Harp Farm is exponentially worse than if the same applied to outlying farms. ? Modern farm buildings and grain stores will be made redundant with no prospect of alternative planning uses due to their size, specialist design and location in a rural setting, and other planning policy constraints, including the AONB designation, highways constraints and the proximity to the SSSI. ? The two main farms, Harp Farm and Boxley Grange Farm, are residential farms, each equipped with a range of modern and traditional farm buildings. David Attwood has two children and his succession plans are presently to leave each child with a viable farming unit. The proposed reduces Harp Farm to a productive arable area of approximately 147.7 hectares, resulting in a non-viable farm business. Attwood Family Impact ? David Attwood’s immediate family are all employed on the farm and their livelihoods will therefore be impacted by the loss of the subject land. Ecology ? The subject land is included in a Higher Tier Stewardship Scheme. The habitats managed by David Attwood under this Scheme support protected species. The habitats enhance the existing biodiversity and ecological value of the land, which will be lost. ? The proposed compensatory habitat will be new woodland. To align the new habitat with that of the neighbouring designated assets, it is assumed, in the absence of detail in the DCO application, that National Highways will create ‘Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland’, in accordance with the UKHab Habitat Definitions Guide. Using Defra’s Biodiversity Metric 3.1, the creation of this habitat would result in a loss of biodiversity from the existing mixed arable/stewardship habitat. A strategy that results in a reduction of biodiversity cannot be said to effectively mitigate harm. Alternative sites ? Alternative sites of open land that adjoin the SSSI and other designated assets, and in the same locality as David Attwood’s land, would be able to provide the same connectivity between habitats, create new habitats at a landscape scale and therefore be suitable as compensatory habitat."

David Burbridge
"As a visitor to the area I am interested in the impacts to Ancient Woodland and the Thames marsh areas, transparency of impacts and work being done to minimise impacts to existing habitat, but also mitigation / offset. I am not necessarily against the scheme."

BTF Partnership on behalf of David Malcolm South
"• Statement of Reasons 4.1 under Annex B Schedule of Negotiations No 235, identifies the engagement between the parties up to the point of submission of the DCO application and its subsequent acceptance by PINS. It should be noted that at the time of this registration, plot 10-04 is in the process of being transferred into a number of different Trusts, but for the purposes of this registration we have maintained the Owner at the time of the DCO submission and BTF Partnership remain instructed to act on behalf of the Owners. • First engagement by the Applicant occurred on 01.02.22. The interested party believes that the applicant has not undertaken sufficient research to consider that the affected property identified in the applicant’s land plans as plot number 10-04 is suitable for the needs of the proposal being for mitigation relating to Nitrate Deposition. • A request for the first site survey was received from the Applicant on 25 October 2022, with a statement that “this time of year is far from ideal for undertaking pretty much any kind of ecology survey. However, we would still like to visit the site to gather any relevant information we are able to at this stage. We would then likely wish to survey again in the spring”. • The survey team visited on 22 November 2022 and surveyors on site stated that “they are looking for land that has quite an ecologically diverse starting point due to the costs involved improving the land to meet the biodiversity targets”. “The project is already so expensive they are looking for straightforward cost-effective options”. This was followed up by the following: • The fields surveyed were heavily horse grazed and considered to represent semi-improved grassland based on the species count recorded. • There were no signs of badger activity within the fields. • Of the small number of ponds that were inspected, only one was considered to offer suitable habitat to support great crested newt. It should be noted that this does not mean GCN were / are present, only that it would be appropriate to survey that pond for their presence at the appropriate time of year (April – June • Plot 10-04 is utilised for horse grazing and amenity land for the predominant benefit of The Parsonage. • The Applicant states that they have made worst-case (also called ‘precautionary’) nitrogen deposition assessments for these areas based on the available traffic modelling. As the seasonal surveys continue, we will refine our assessments and finalise our proposals for mitigation and compensation, and these will be included in our DCO application. By taking this precautionary approach, we can ensure our mitigation and compensation proposals are sufficient to address any nitrogen deposition effects from the implementation of the Lower Thames Crossing - We consider this evidence that there is insufficient justification for the inclusion of the Interested Party’s land for compulsory acquisition based on assessments undertaken. • When challenged as to how the areas for Nitrate Deposition were calculated, the response from the Applicant was that no formula has been devised to calculate with precision the land area required. It is based in part on professional judgment and discussion with Natural England. The Interest Party’s property has been identified simply by a desktop survey and the wishes of Natural England and therefore we contend is insufficient to justify its inclusion in the DCO for compulsory acquisition. • The Interested Party has significant concerns on security, as do the adjoining residential properties. The response from the Applicant was that the primary purpose of the compensation land is for the establishment of habitat. Public access to the land would only be considered if appropriate. Concerns could be considered, and commitments made to prevent public access if required. If this land is to be compulsory acquired, public access should not be considered."

Essex Police
"The representations of Essex Police seek to secure appropriate mitigation and management measures, either via requirements of the DCO or a planning obligation to address the likely impacts arising from the scheme on its operations, service capacity, infrastructure, and resources, incorporating staff, vehicle fleet and estate assets. We understand that the project will provide a new road connection between the A2 and M2 in Kent, via an under river crossing and join the M25 close to junction 29 and whilst the need, transport, safety, and user benefits are acknowledged, our review of the scheme indicates that significant impacts are likely to arise for Essex Police, particularly during construction phase of the development, which require appropriate mitigation and management as part of any Development Consent Order. Comments are also made in relation to the design principles for the operational phase of the Scheme, which warrant consideration in the form of scheme clarification and/ or amendment. As key social infrastructure providers, emergency services and ‘interested parties’ in this DCO process, Essex Police are engaging with the Applicant (National Highways) with the aim of reaching substantive agreement on the main issues with any outstanding matters to be discussed and agreed during the Examination. Such measures are likely to incorporate: - Developer funding to support the policing provision to increase capacity, response capability and project preparations for resourcing, infrastructure, vehicle fleet and estate assets. - Developer support for early mitigation measures to reduce disruption to service provision, including the development of plans and contingencies for - facilitating emergency access which in urgent cases may also require safe National Police Air Service (NPAS) helicopter access. Additionally, emergency and resilience planning must be engaged to ensure an appropriate multi-agency plan is in place to respond to incidents. - Developer support for Essex Police for the duration of the construction period to ensure effective engagement with the Developer and blue light partners, supporting the creation of emergency procedures, community liaison and membership at appropriate working groups where appropriate. Developer support to reduce the impact and disruption during the construction phase to surrounding communities and Essex Police employees, including community liaison measures and a clear customer contact strategy. - It is recognised the completion of the Lower Thames Crossing will bring significant benefits to the road networks currently provided in this area. To maintain road safety measures and ensure benefits are maximised it is suggested that where appropriate, the average speed systems in force during construction should remain as a legacy to the project and to assist the Safer Essex Roads Partnership (SERP) with the aspiration of Vision Zero road deaths and serious injury by 2040. A written submission (Relevant Representation) to follow under separate cover. Essex Police have prepared a detailed document outlining all representations. But a synopsis of the areas of concern are: DESIGN: The scheme should be planned and designed to improve safety and provide best opportunity to lower crime and fatalities, supporting measures to mitigate risk on the road network and to surrounding communities. This will include: -Preventing KSI (those Killed or Seriously Injured) Road Traffic Collisions and suicide -Preventing the potential risk of a possible attack towards ongoing traffic by objects being thrown from a bridge. -Mitigating the potential for Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), damage and graffiti. -Mitigating the risk of protest activity CONSTRUCTION: While the introduction of workers will boost the local economy there will be disbenefits which could impact local residents such as increased night time economy and associated increase in volumes of crime as a victim or involved party. The force is preparing an analytical product to seek remuneration to employ additional staff to offset the increase in incidents associated with the construction phase. The construction phase will present significant challenges to the force to respond to incidents and reduce response times and additional road safety measures to offset the increased demand."

Higham Parish Council
"As a Statutory Consultee, Higham Parish Council have agreed a SoCG with NH, submitted as part of their application and to which reference should be made for our ground of objection. As requested, we will also produce a PADS. Briefly, we disagree with the chosen route and the unnecessary loss of prime agricultural land caused by it. Government policy, for food security and other reasons is to protect prime land, not to use it for roads and public parks. If it is chosen, then the necessary improvement of roads leading to the LTC need to be upgraded before the LTC opens; the existing route from Dover and Folkestone being via the M20. The LTC is predicted to cause a dramatic increase in traffic along the A226 in the parish both during construction and once operational to the detriment of residents trying to leave the village via uncontrolled junctions, as well as those living along the road (some of whom have to reverse onto the road) and a school. The A226 is within the red line but there are no proposals to do any of the required improvement works, in order to keep it safe. The traffic model shows traffic volumes changing along the A226 at the point where there is an emergency access which we are told cannot happen. This and the predicted increases on other unrelated roads, which are mainly less than 5 metres wide, causes us to question the traffic model. The design of the junction with the A2 travelling eastbound has too few lanes and will just move existing congestion, not ameliorate it. Similarly we disagree with the removal of the existing A2/Brewers Road junction. The new road, like the A2, is being built to motorway standards and, like the A2 should have a hard shoulder. It should not rely on discredited ‘Smart Motorway’ technology. No effort is going to be made to mitigate the effect of noise dust and vibration on residents and dwellings whether arising from construction works or the predicted increase in traffic on existing roads. The Parish Council wants a proper commitment for it to be fully consulted on traffic matters during the construction phase. The Parish Council are also concerned about the impact on the environment of the proposals, particularly long (centuries not decades) established eco systems and believe that other pollutants, such a PM2.5, should be considered and not just NO2. The effect of the scheme on biodiversity is of concern to us, as is the guaranteeing of the retention of all environmental mitigation measures for the very long term"

J.Shippam
"Waste of precious agricultural land; waste of building materials and their considerable carbon emissions. Increased pollution from induced traffic increase. Failure to pursue and promote alternative forms of transport. Appalling damage to wildlife and ecosystems despite government claims for increased biodiversity. Biodiversity accounting by developers are not independent nor to be trusted. Prodigious and misdirected waste of money. When all resources and strategic planning should be con.oncentrated on the consequences of global warming. I could go"

John Purkiss
"1. Noise during construction and if and when the LTC goes through. 2. Pollution including PM2.5s and light pollution. 3. As East Tilbury has a prevailing westerly wind the air quality for residents with many who already suffer with COPD conditions would increase. 4. The East Tilbury area already suffers with traffic problems and during the build this will be dramatically increased. 5. If the the LTC was to be built more underground in built up areas the the impact would would be far more sustainable for local residents. 6. I have been to nearly all the consultations regarding the LTC and it seems residents views are not taken on board why?"

Joseph Downie
"My main interest is around the issue of a failed road expansion policy which simply generates more traffic, and more emissions... Building new roads doesn't meet demand, it generates new demand, by continuing to make road transport the desired mode of transport over all others. This will result in an increase in carbon emissions at a time when other sectors of society are doing good work to reduce emissions. To say nothing of the colossal cost..."

Kelly Tolhurst MP
"Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to put forward my views as an interested party and as Member of Parliament for Rochester and Strood. While I recognise the pressures on the current Thames Crossing and the need to alleviate these, I cannot support the proposals as they stand. The current plans do not go far enough to consider the impact that the Lower Thames Crossing will have on the already congested road network in and around the Medway towns. The fact that the crossing would lead on to an already regularly congested section of the A2 – without significant plans to upgrade it – will lead to greater congestion on what is a vital artery for the South East and national economy. We cannot be left with a situation where the problems currently affecting the A2 are pushed further into the already pressured towns and villages of Medway and Gravesham. The Crossing will only push further traffic into the most dense part of Kent where our road networks are under huge strain. I and other MPs have previously asked what modelling has been undertaken to see how the crossing will affect our local roads and I have not seen any reassuring modelling. Before the construction of the LTC we need to see some significant improvements to nearby road infrastructure – something that I have been advised previously will not be able to happen until several years after the LTC has opened and we are able to see what the impact is on other road networks. There is also a lack of consideration of the proposed increase of housing across North Kent, with around 30,000 homes planned for Medway alone, with most targeted around the Peninsula. Similarly, there is evidently no strategic thought around the additional air pollution that will come with extra traffic and congestion in an already impacted area, nor the environmental impacts on the ground. For instance, it is sad that the tunnel and link road east of Gravesend will destroy some of the area’s most beautiful natural spaces and farmland across North Kent. It is unfortunate that the affect this will have on our community that will be an afterthought and I would urge greater consideration towards the impact this will have on the surrounding road network, to which we need to see significant improvements before the LTC goes ahead, not after. Kind regards, Kelly"

Kent Downs AONB Unit
"The Kent Downs AONB Unit will submit its relevant representation by email before the deadline of 24/02/2023. Below is a summary of the the main points raised: The proposed scheme would result in significant adverse impacts to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Kent Downs AONB, principally as a result of the widening of the A2 and associated vegetation loss and the proximity of the new junction with the A2 to the AONB boundary. It is considered that the route selection process failed to give sufficient consideration of impacts to the nationally protected AONB, particularly as the majority of the impacts within the designated area were not known at the time the route was selected. While a comprehensive package of mitigation is proposed, it is not considered that the impacts of the scheme on the Kent Downs AONB can be satisfactorily mitigated and much of the mitigation/compensation planting is proposed outside of the Kent Downs AONB. It is therefore considered that in the event of the Project coming forward, compensation should be provided for the acknowledged harm to the AONB. The residual impacts to the AONB are considered to be underassessed in the LVIA. It is also considered that the Planning Statement’s justification against the tests set out in the NPSNN relating to impacts on the AONB underplays the harm to this designation and relies over heavily in justification of the scheme on a reduction of impact arising as a result of design refinements. The Kent Downs AONB strongly objects to the scheme."

Leigh Hughes
"I am strongly opposed to the LTC it doesn’t meet the schemes objectives and will not solve the problems at the Dartford Crossing. The cost of this project has escalated out of control, it is now estimated to cost over £10 bn+ this is an embarrassing out of date legacy to leave the future generations. The road has no provisions for any public transport, when it opens or in the future, there will be communities cut off, the loss of ancient woodland and grade 1 agricultural land which currently grows salad for the local super markets which is helping reduce their carbon footprint. Veteran trees, hedgerows being removed natural underground watercourses being diverted away from farmland which the farmer relies on in the summer to irrigate his crops, building a big viaduct across the fens/Mardyke, which already floods properties in Bulphan and on Clay Tye Road. Wildlife and protected species being moved to places where they will have to compete with territorial wildlife that is already established. Increased carbon emissions of around 6.6 million tons and the increase of air and noise pollution which the whole route fails on new UK legal levels for PM2.5 and living in a toxic triangle the M25 A13 and the LTC surrounding you. This proposed road will have a very detrimental effect on my well being as my property is on the development boundary. No one can get a mortgage on my property so I can only sell to NH at a price they think its worth and after checking the quality of windows and making stipulations the value decreases. My property has no foundations and being located 75 metres away from the proposed North Road green bridge will not withstand the vibrations throughout the construction period we have been told that work will be carried out 24/7 with rolling traffic lights and there could be times that it will be impossible for me to access my home let alone have letters delivered or my cesspool cleared. NH are very aware of my situation and I have been waiting for answers for 2 years now and they have not been forthcoming. This is my family home and dealing with NH has caused me anxiety and health issues. When corresponding with them they have no empathy and it is hard work, consultations have been inadequate lots of information has not been shared NH mantra being ”your questions are too technical you have to wait, it will be in the DCO” they have been very dismissive when I have been asking for basic information. I have been put in this position that unless I want to sell at a very big loss, I have no other choice but to fight and to be the voice of the residents who are also in this position but feel too intimidated to challenge them. I am still reading through the 63.000-pages of documents trying to find more information so I may have further comments to make."

Linda Helsey
"There are not many areas within Essex which remain free for our wildlife. My own town is considering building on greenbelt and open spaces. The Wildlife Trust have worked hard to establish habitates but the proposed tunnel will impact on animals such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. We are constantly reminded that trees form an important part in our diversity yet this development will cause fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. With the increase in noise and light pollution, communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects will all be affected. I appreciate that we all need to get around, but we need to pay particular attention to all of natures needs otherwise we will have a country not worth living in! We need nature to support our biodiversity goals, that does not include eradicating it!"

London Gateway Port Limited
"Introduction and Background London Gateway Port Limited, LG Park Freehold Limited and LG Park Leasehold Limited (collectively hereinafter referred to as DPWLG) are the owners and operators of DP World London Gateway Port (the Port) and DP World London Gateway Logistics Park (the Logistics Park) on the north bank of the Thames Estuary in Stanford-le Hope, Essex. The Port is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and makes a significant contribution to the national economy1. Once fully developed, the Port will comprise deep sea shipping and container handling facilities with an annual throughput that will equate to approximately 27% of the predicted national growth in such trade by 2030. The Logistics Park will provide up to approximately 830,000sq.m of vital commercial floorspace. Both are of national significance and importance. Representation DPWLG are generally supportive of additional river crossing highway capacity and increased network resilience for north/south routes (alternative to Dartford Crossing and M25 Junction 30). However, there are significant concerns over the real potential for ‘severe’ impact on the highway network2, which would in turn lead to significant impacts on the economic activity and future growth of the Port and Logistics Park3, in addition to impacts on the wider economy. DPWLG make the following representations: • Limited and wholly insufficient information has been submitted to show that the impact at the A13/A128 Orsett Cock junction and the A13/A1014 Manorway junction (the Junctions) have been properly assessed. Both are located along a critical route to the Port and Logistics Park3. The application, therefore, fails properly to assess congestion and capacity issues at these Junctions or consider whether and to what extent these impacts need to be mitigated4. • Congestion on the local highway network, due to the proposed LTC development, has the real potential to create significant adverse impacts at the Junctions5, which in turn would constrain the operation of the Port and Logistics Park3. The application does not consider the potential economic impact on the Port and Logistics Park and their essential contribution to the regional and national economy1. • S.3(6) of the Infrastructure Act 2015 establishes a requirement for both the Secretary of State and National Highways to comply with the Road Investment Strategy (RIS). In this regard we highlight that: - RIS2 (2020 – 2025) (Part 1, Section 3, Page 37) sets out proposals for changes to the geographic extent of the SRN including trunking of the A13/A1014 from the end of the trunked A13 through to London Gateway Port - A Performance Indicator for RIS2 relates to “delay on gateway (ports and airport) routes” . The target performance is 97% network availability: “for average delay we have set an ambition for performance at the end of RP2 to be no worse than at the end of RP1. Highways England will be required to demonstrate how it has acted to achieve this ambition.” - The end of the RIS2 period (2025) is in advance of the anticipated first operational use of the LTC (2030). It is therefore necessary to assess the impact on the route comprising the A13/A1014 from the end of the trunked A13 through to the Port and Logistics Park as part of the DCO examination. • There is a need for mitigation solutions at the Junctions6 to prevent accessibility and operational issues at the Port and Logistics Park7. • Impacts during closures of Dartford Crossing (e.g. high wind close the QE2 bridge) must be considered. In such circumstances the level of traffic re-routing via the A13/A128 and A13/A1014 junctions would be likely to be extremely significant. Conclusions The benefits of the LTC cannot be weighed against the significant adverse traffic impacts for the Port and Logistics Park (or as a result the national economy) as the traffic and economic impacts have not been properly assessed within the application8. Further transport assessment work and economic analysis is required to fully understand whether the adverse impacts of the proposed development outweigh its benefits9 and to gauge what, and to what extent, mitigation works would be required to obviate or minimise these impacts to acceptable levels so as not to prejudice Port and Logistics Park related activity contrary to the national interest. Without prejudice to DPWLG’s case that it is for the applicant to establish the acceptability of the scheme having regard to the impacts on its operations, DPWLG reserves the right to adduce any technical evidence that may be necessary properly to inform the decision-making process. Footnotes: 1 Paragraph 1.2 of NPS for National Networks confirms other NPS statements may be relevant to decisions on NSIPs. Paragraph 3.3.6 of National Policy Statement for Ports recognises the essential contribution to the national economy that international and domestic trade makes through the UK’s Ports. 2 Paragraph 111, NPPF. 3 Paragraph 2.16 of NPS for National Networks confirms traffic congestion constrains economic activity and growth, and furthermore the paragraph states that businesses make decisions about where to locate based on good transport connections. 4 Ibid. Paragraph 5.206 confirms the applicant’s assessment should include a proportionate assessment of the transport impacts on other networks as part of the application. 5 Ibid. Paragraph 5.212 confirms any assessment should consider local transport models. Manorway junction has not been assessed as part of the submission, despite pre-submission consultation highlighting this junction and congestion as a potential issue. Initial review of microsimulation assessment provided by LTC to Thurrock Council suggests that LATM is significantly over-estimating the capacity of these junctions and therefore the overall validity of the LATM is questioned. 6 Ibid.Paragraphs 5.216 – 5.217 confirms where development would worsen accessibility such impacts should be mitigated so far as reasonably possible. 7 Ibid.Paragraph 5.214 confirms if the applicant is willing to commit to transport planning obligations to mitigate transport impacts identified in the WebTAG transport assessment with attribution of costs calculated the development consent should not be withheld. 8 Ibid. Paragraph 4.3. 9 Ibid. Paragraph 1.2."

Lorraine Jackman
"Mental health Protection of wildlife Disruption of village Damage to village and surrounding areas Noise and air pollution"

Louise Macpherson
"I am strongly against further environmentally destructive Road building. We are in a climate emergency and should be discouraging car use and improving public transport. The cost of this project cannot be justified when our country is experiencing a financial crisis. This money could improve public transport, support the NHS and improve our education system. Younger people do not drive in the same numbers that young people did 40 years ago and so we do not need bigger roads. I am very strongly against this road development."

Mair Bain
"This scheme will not solve congestion as it will induce demand – increase in cross river traffic (around 50%). The scheme will increase carbon emissions by around 6.6 million tonnes. This does not align with the UK's aims to meet Net Zero 2050. The Welsh Government has recently scrapped road building schemes if they are not compatible with climate targets. This scheme clearly isn't as it will increase emissions both through construction and increased road traffic. That £10bn+ would more beneficial invested into low carbon sustainable transport options to reduce congestion and pollution. The whole scheme should be paused while other sustainable low carbon alternative transport solutions are analysed for a cost:benefit comparison with this scheme by the Department for Transport."

Marian Mestanek
"Wales has prevented the building of a new road with regard to the pollution, congestion and damage to the environment it would cause. The same reasons apply to the lower Thames crossing. It will cause more congestion and pollution than Thurrock has now. We already have the worst air quality in the country. It will destroy peace and habitat. Local people do not want it. We must aim for less vehicles on our roads. This crossing will engender more."

Mark Bavin
"I wish to make a representation with particular regard to the excessive amount of land take for environmental impact and compensation purposes in respect of this project. With each successive public consultation, the amount of land required for this purpose has increased, partly driven by nitrogen deposition and other pollutant data but also to provide swathes of formerly, privately owned land, for open green spaces accessible by local communities, no doubt, to placate and minimise local opposition to the project. This specific type of land acquisition is nationalisation of private property by another name, the scale of which, sets a dangerous precedent. My particular concern is in the amount of land appropriation that appears to be far in excess of the trees and habitat being affected by the construction project itself on the south side of the river Thames in the Gravesham and Blue Bell Hill areas. I cannot see how nitrogen levels and other pollutants will be very different to what they are now and indeed, may improve with better traffic flows, and over time, with increasing use of electric vehicles and clean technologies. The relief of traffic flows, and their associated pollutants, at the existing Dartford crossing point as a result of this new crossing, should also be considered. In time, the need for environmental mitigation may, in large part, prove to be temporary, but the loss of private land to their current owners will be permanent. I respectfully request, therefore, that the justification for the compulsory purchase of large tracts of privately owned land, extraneous to the actual construction of the project, is closely scrutinised by the examiners and constrained to the absolute minimum necessary."

Mike Tristram
"My concerns with this scheme are: As a farmer and someone concerned about national food security, the impact on farmland is unacceptable. As an environmental land manager and someone concerned about the ecological biodiversity crisis, the impact on habitats such as woodland including ancient woodland, and wildlife including protected species, is unacceptable. It increases car journey numbers and dependency, with no provision for NMU/active travel across the river. It is bad for local communities, both through its local impact and through air pollution eg PM2.5. It will increase carbon emissions. It is bad value for money - there are many higher priorities for taxpayers' money."

Peter Booth
"It is in the wrong place and the traffic systems on either side of the river have not been thought through properly. The route to the channel ports is through the A229 which is already back on to the M2 every rush hour. Really dangerous. History of recent infrastructure schemes are underpriced in order to get permission as they wouldn’t get if they were honest. They recently have been undercoated by on average a factor of 210% so the likely cost of this project will probably come out at £17.22bn. The country cannot afford this. Don’t let it happen."

Raymond alan Murray
"my main concern is air quality for local residence like me. the pollutants and toxins discharged would have an adverse effect on peoples health. The environment minister must be made aware that there are cities, towns, and councils in the U.K. that are restricting or banning polluting transport in order for the inhabitance to live a healthier life. This proposal road will be going in a complete opposite environmental direction."

Richard Jackman
"Noise pollution Air pollution House prices Disruption to village and surrounding areas Mental health Wildlife protection"

Robert Rogers
"The project would: increase traffic growth leading to more carbon emissions, and combined with the construction emissions (see below), the total carbon emissions from the scheme would be at least 6.6 million tonnes over its lifetime making this the biggest emitting scheme ever proposed (7.3.37 of the Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report); increase emissions from its construction by around an additional 2 million tonnes (at least, as National Highways are obscuring the real total with offsetting schemes), all within the critical fourth carbon budget when we need to achieve 68% reductions in UK carbon emissions by 2030 under our legally binding commitments under the Paris Agreement; not solve the congestion at the Dartford Crossing, as claimed by National Highways. The Dartford Crossing would be still be over capacity if the LTC were built. So the LTC fails to meet its own objectives. would impact on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its setting; increase air pollution and noise pollution which will have direct and indirect impacts on humans, the AONB, SACs, SSSI and endangered species; increase severance of local communities and the rights of way network. cost taxpayers at least £10 billion when the country cannot afford this. not be good value for money with a benefit-cost-ratio (BCR) of only 1.22 (meaning for every £1 spent, there will only be £1.22 of economic benefits) so is "Low" value for money according to government guidelines."

Robert Syrett
"I am concerned about the impact of the project on the local area in relation to increased noise and air pollution ; the effect this will have on health both physical and mental. I am concerned about the large number of heavy plant movement in the area whilst construction is underway with all the noise, dust and congestion this will cause. I am concerned about the enormous cost of the project for very little gain in terms of reducing the congestion and queuing at the Dartford tunnel."

Sheila Pearce
"Concerns with - disturbing the environment, traffic, noise, pollution, lact of infrastu concerns with - pollution, traffic, noise, lights. views."

Simon Rose
"- Require massive budget from public funds (£10bn+) at time we can ill afford and this does not represent value for money - taking money away from sustainable travel. - Will impact woodland (inc ancient woodland), trees (inc ancient/veteran), hedgerows, greenbelt. This will greatly and negatively impact wildlife and their habitat. - it will significantly increase air and noise pollution. I understand the proposed route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5 - There are no provisions for active travel - The proposals will not solve the problems suffered due to the Dartford Crossing - That this (and any new road) will create Induced demand – increase in cross river traffic - it fails to provide adequate connections, especially when incidents occur - Both construction and when in use there will be increased carbon emissions"

Slough Fort Preservation Trust
"We are broadly supportive of the plans seeing the benefits. However, we want to be assured that there is good mitigation in respect of both natural and heritage assets that may suffer as a consequence of the construction and long term impact and that there is natural and heritage legacy for the project."

Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of Southern Gas Networks PLC
"WITHDRAWN on 31 July 2023 (EL Reference: AS-149). Dear Sirs National Highways (Promoter) Application for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Lower Thames Crossing project located east of Gravesend and Tilbury (Order). Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR010032 Objection on behalf of Southern Gas Networks Plc (SGN) 21 February 2023 Addleshaw Goddard LLP acts on behalf of SGN and is authorised to make this relevant representation on its behalf in objection to the proposed Order. SGN is the licensed gas transporter for the Order area, and objects so as to ensure the protection of its interests in land and apparatus and the safe and effective operation of its gas transportation network. As a responsible statutory undertaker, SGN's primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. The Promoter seeks powers within the Order for the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in which SGN is interested. SGN therefore wishes to protect its position in light of existing apparatus which is both within, and in the vicinity of, the proposed Order boundaries through suitable protective provisions being secured in the Order. SGN’s rights to retain its infrastructure in situ and rights of access to inspect, repair and renew such apparatus within the limits of the respective Order must be maintained at all times, and access by SGN and its servants and agents to that apparatus for the purpose of its undertaking must not be restricted. Accordingly, SGN will require appropriate protective provisions to be included within the Order to protect its statutory undertaking and to ensure that public safety is not compromised. Equally both the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the project will not cause a serious detriment to the carrying out by SGN of its statutory undertaking before granting consent to the proposed Order. In view of the above, and pending agreement with the Promoter, SGN objects to the Promoter's application and reserves its right to make further representations during the Examination process should that be so necessary. However, SGN is in the process of reviewing the draft Order and associated plans, and looks forward to engaging constructively with the Promoter in an effort to resolve all issues of concern. Should the Examining Authority require any additional information from SGN further to this representation, please contact Gary Sector of Addleshaw Goddard LLP, Milton Gate, 60 Chiswell Street, London EC1Y 4AG on 020 7160 3102 or via email at (Redacted) Yours faithfully Addleshaw Goddard LLP"

Sport England
"Sport England is the non-departmental public body responsible for delivering the Government’s community sporting and physical activity objectives. Sport England is also a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields. Sport England made comments on the original, supplementary, design refinements and community impacts consultations on the Lower Thames Crossing between 2018-2021 before the DCO application was accepted. Positive proposals have been made in the DCO for addressing many of the issues raised in our pre-application consultation responses which are welcomed such as the proposals for restoring sports facility sites that are required for temporary construction works and utility related works. However, Sport England would like to make a representation on the DCO to cover the following points: • The scope of the proposed Requirements (in the Schedule of Requirements) in relation to the replacement of Gravesend Golf Centre needs to provide more detail on the information that would need to be submitted and approved on replacement golf facility provision. This is necessary in order to meet the criteria for replacement provision set out in paragraph 5.166 of the NSPNN relating to replacement provision being equivalent or better in terms of quantity and quality; • The need for clarification on the scope of the impact and the proposed mitigation for the loss of the Gravesend Golf Centre and potentially the Cascades Leisure Centre recreation ground as there would appear to be inconsistencies between the submitted documents. Schedule 1 part 2 of the DCO requires the authorised development to be designed in detail and carried out in accordance with the design principles document and the preliminary scheme design shown on the engineering drawings and sections. The Planning Statement (Appendix G: Private Recreational Facilities) identifies the loss of a 9 hole par 3 course at Gravesend Golf Centre and its replacement on part of the existing Southern Valley Golf Course. However, the Design Principles document Table 5.3, S3.17 refers only to the replacement of a recreation ground for Gravesend Borough Council adjacent to Cascades Leisure Centre to be developed in co-ordination with the Council. There would not appear to be any other reference to the loss of part of this recreation ground in any of the documents supporting the DCO and there is no reference in the Design Principles document to the replacement of the private Gravesend Golf Centre 9 hole course. • The need for an additional ‘Requirement’ (in the Schedule of Requirements) relating to the drainage impact on playing fields in close proximity to the area covered by the DCO. The impact of the development on drainage of playing fields adjoining the construction area has been acknowledge in the Environmental Statement (Chapter 13) This would involve a baseline assessment of the ground conditions of identified playing fields being undertaken in advance of any works commencing and for a similar assessment to be undertaken following the completion of the works to assess whether the drainage capacity of the playing fields has been adversely affected directly by the project. Provision would need to be made in the ‘Requirement’ for any adverse impact attributed to the project to be satisfactorily mitigated within an agreed timescale; • The need to assess the impact of the project on a private playing field site that was not covered in Planning Statement Appendix G that would be directly affected by the proposals. This is the Orsett Park Royals Football Club site to the north west of the Orsett Cock A13 junction. This site was assessed as part of the previous ‘Community Impacts Consultation’ in 2021 but has not been considered as part of the DCO. It is considered that the impact could be resolved if access could be maintained to the majority of the playing field during the works and if the area to the south of the playing field that would be affected was restored in accordance with the Project’s provision of reinstatement. Sport England would be happy to discuss the above points with a view to reaching mutually agreeable solutions as the examination progresses."

Veronica Prince
"Would not solve the problems suffered due to the Dartford Crossing Induced demand – increase in cross river traffic (around 50%) Lack of adequate connections, especially when there are incidents Increase in carbon emissions (around 6.6 million tonnes) Waste of over £10bn+, not value for money, false economy as other spending would be needed as direct result Loss and impact to thousands of acres of farmland threatening food security Destroy and impact woodland (inc ancient woodland), trees (inc ancient/veteran), hedgerows, greenbelt Devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected species Increase in air and noise pollution, whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5 No provision for cross river active travel, not viable for public transport due to lack of adequate connections Destruction and impacts to homes and communities Concerns about construction impacts Doesn’t meet scheme objectives"

Alec Nelson
"Main points: Environmental impact and mitigation, including relocation of endangered species Expected traffic estimates by class of vehicle. Consideration of things that could affect traffic volumes (eg DP port growth) Speed limits considered and cost differences between different target speed limits Local access roads and junctions"

Andrew Moore
"I am opposed to the Ltc because I do not believe that it will not achieve the objectives of lowering the traffic numbers at the Dartford crossing. In turn lower emissions, noise, and traffic at the Dartford crossing. Instead it Will increase these to the East of the crossing . The cost of tunnelling and inevitable effect to the wild life East of the dartford crossing that the tunnelling will cause is a major concern. A second bridge at Dartford would better serve the traffic, wild life and lower the cost."

Anna Bryant
"The stated aim of the project is to reduce congestion at the Dartford Crossing. However the proposal for the LTC does not achieve this aim, as it does not alleviate the problems at Dartford in the long term. It is proposed to spend £8bn+ on the LTC with no budget allocated to the Dartford crossing. After the LTC has been completed, the Dartford crossing will remain over capacity, with the issues we see today remaining, with no plan to address it. The option to build an additional crossing at Dartford was summarily dismissed at the beginning of consultation, although it is cheaper and has less environmental impact than the LTC (no Greenbelt/AONB impact). There needs to be a joined up roads strategy for Kent, and optimised allocation of public funds, which addresses the pressure on the M25 and M20 (no current solution for Operation Stack/Brock) and appropriately deals with the woefully inadequate supporting road structure of the M2/A2/A229."

Brian Maurice Murphy
"Additional pollution arising in an already heavily polluted area is unacceptable. The congestion on local roads in particular the A13 and A 128 , acting as feeder roads for the new A13 junction."

C.Dawson
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Once done it can’t be undone - we have all ruined far too much of this beautiful planet already, don’t be a part of any further destruction."

Camille Simonet
"In the context of climate breakdown, the LTC road project is not fit for purpose. By providing more road capacity, it will inevitably increase traffic. This compromises our ability to meet Net Zero emissions. Even assuming a large replacement of combustion engine cars by electric vehicles, higher rates of car ownership and disregard for public transport and active modes of travel will offset the environmental advantages of electric vehicles [Redacted]. The main argument to the LTC is to "improve journey times" and "ease congestion". However, these objectives can be achieved in ways that do not compromise our NetZero targets by investing in public transport. For example, the LTC does not provide ways for cross-river active travel and is not viable for public transport due to a lack of adequate connections. In addition, the ease of congestion in one place brings new noise, traffic, and air pollution in previously undisturbed areas. Finally, the LTC claims to bring 400,000 new jobs. However, these are 400,000 jobs (and £10bn+) taken away from the green energy transition that must occur urgently."

Charles Perceval
"The Lower Thames Crossing scheme as proposed by National Highways is excessively detrimental to the environment damaging to to the local area and the local people and enormously expensive. It goes against government policy of achieving net zero emissions. Other options must be adopted to conform to present day environmental needs."

Charlotte Lyons
"This absolutely cannot go ahead. The damage to the local environment, animals and eco system would be catastrophic and enough damage is already being caused in other areas of the country."

Strutt & Parker on behalf of Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance (CDBF) (Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance (CDBF))
"This summary sets out the key concerns of the Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance (CDBF). The CDBF’s concerns are set out in full in a letter dated 21st February 2023 to Sarah Collins, Head of Land, Property and Compensation, National Highways. 1) Land North of South Ockendon The CDBF confirm that they support in full the representations that have been submitted on behalf of Bellway Homes Ltd. concerning Land North of South Ockendon, and which are set out in a letter also dated 21st February 2023 to Sarah Collins, Head of Land, Property and Compensation, National Highways. As shown on the Illustrative Masterplan appended to that letter, the land’s western boundary abuts the railway line to the east of South Ockendon. Through its emerging Local Plan, Thurrock Council has identified South Ockendon, including the land over which Bellway Homes has an option (see also Illustrative Bellway Option Plan also appended to that letter), as having potential for large scale strategic growth of up to 10,000 homes to meet identified housing needs. This includes the land interests of the CDBF. Bellway’s intention was and continues to be to develop the entirety of the area within their Option Plan, which includes the land owned by the CDBF. Therefore, construction of the LTC over this land will lead to a significant reduction in the developable area. As a result of the current LTC proposals the capacity of the land being promoted by Bellway will reduce to approximately 1,000 dwellings and approximately 20 acres of employment land, as indicated on the illustrative masterplan. There could be a further reduction in the number of homes delivered within Bellway’s Option due to the impact of noise generated by the LTC if this is not sufficiently mitigated. Further detailed concerns are set out within the above-mentioned letter. 2) Land South of Ockendon Road, North Ockendon (North Ockendon Glebe) The CDBF has previously raised three queries with National Highways regarding this land. To date, we note that we have not received a formal response to those queries, which are repeated, as below: 1. Plans still appear to be to close the bridge over Ockendon Road for 19 months between June 2025 and March 2027. Can National Highways please confirm how they propose to provide access to North Ockendon Glebe during this time? 2. Previous plans showed a parcel of land that was severed on Land Registry Title Number EGL419156. This is no longer the case, but the latest plans do not identify a field access. A field access is essential to the current tenant of the land and its loss would have a significant impact on their use of the land. to the field from Ockendon Road. 3. The land allocated as “temporary occupation with permanent acquisition of rights” appears to be the diversion of utilities. Can National Highways confirm what utility will be diverted, when it is likely to occur and whether there is any undergrounding?"

Christine Bell
"I am against the lower Thames crossing because of the impact on wildlife. This includes the biodiversity loss such as water voles, reptiles and all insects. There will also be damage and irretrievable habitat loss including ancient woodlands and local wildlife sites . There will be an increase in noise and lighting disturbing the natural cycle of nature and wildlife. There will be a loss to the already sparse wildlife areas and tranquil spaces which has been proven to aid in human mental health. There will be more traffic activity increasing noise and c02 emissions which is a critical factor of climate change. As always happens, whenever there are roads, housing developments always appear which again impacts in the same way as above. I feel it is vitally important that protection of all wildlife is 100% protected"

Cobham Parish Council
"I am the Vice chair of Cobham Parish Council, and this represents the opinions and concerns of my fellow parish councillors and I. During the consultation period we have been working with the LTC team, and have produced a Statement of Common Ground together. The points below are the main areas that we have not reached agreement. 1. Cobham Parish Council have concerns with Brewers Road bridge being closed for 18 months during the construction phase. This is a school bus route and sensible alternatives need to be provided. 2. The Project proposes the addition of a car park to help with Shorne Country Park traffic issues, and visitors parking in the local roads. How will this new car park be managed and will there be parking fees? 3. Cobham Parish Council believe that the statement that there is a ‘low risk of the Project leading to significant adverse air quality effects and exceeding EU limits’ is predicated on a substantially flawed traffic model. 4. Cobham Parish Council would like to see a comprehensive refresh of the traffic modelling using either current mobile phone data or local data gathering equipment. The Covid impact also needs factoring in, and therefore it may also be beneficial to report on mobile phone based traffic data for Feb 2020, pre Covid. And also another data collection early in 2022 to help with the 2029 future modelling 5. Traffic Modelling. The model is high level & has not taken into account local knowledge or nuances within the local road network which will have a significant impact on the model, such as road widths/capacity, pinch points, rat-run routes. 6. Traffic Modelling The model does not take into account the increase in traffic volumes that will occur as a result of large developments in Kent within the Local Plans of councils. 7. Cobham Parish Council are strongly opposed to the view that the Project would improve traffic conditions on the surrounding road network. We have no confidence in the traffic model south of the river which they believe appears to be in place to substantiate the beneficial effects on the Dartford Crossing without sufficient understanding of local road impacts and mitigation plans that will be necessary to counter adverse impacts. 8. Cobham Parish Council would like to see a joined up series of meetings between the Project and KCC. They would be to focus on traffic issues and further develop a Highway Improvement Plan (HIP)to help alleviate the current traffic issues, and to help protect any increases in commuter traffic through Cobham during the build and post 2029 and completion of Lower Thames Crossing. We need this support in place as soon as possible to mitigate any potential for further traffic when volumes are already at an excess level for the classification of road. 9. Cobham and Sole Street already have significant traffic problems during rush hour peaks. The Street through Cobham is now a 20mph zone, and only one vehicle wide in places. We are currently working with Kent County Council with regard to trialling different traffic calming and traffic reduction options. This is a very emotive subject for residents of the parish. Anything that potentially increases traffic volumes within the Cobham ward is therefore of huge concern. We urgently need actions to reduce the current traffic volumes. 10. Cobham Parish Council are concerned at increased traffic along Henhurst road. We are concerned that Henhurst Road is not fit for current or expected increased traffic (as is a very windy country lane). There is a sharp 90 degree bend on Henhurst road which is an accident blackspot (with a recent fatality). 11. Cobham Parish Council suggest traffic calming measures on Sole Street to prevent rat running. There is also concern that Sole Street floods regularly and is dangerous for motorists and pedestrians. 12. CPC are concerned that existing traffic issues on The Street in Cobham, often caused by problems on the A2 will get worse. We express concern about what will be done to protect this road from increased traffic and damage to the listed buildings close to the road. Sole St is forecast to have either a very low increase (up to 50 PCUs) or a reduction in flow. CPC do not agree this will be the outcome. 13. The model forecasts growth of traffic on C roads, through rural villages, including Green Lane/Sole St, Henhurst Rd, Cobhambury Rd, Warren Rd, Bush Rd. These roads & villages already carry traffic above the country average and will have a significant wellbeing impact on local residents. 14. Bottlenecks and pinch points. There are no plans to remove existing bottlenecks and pinch points such as the A229 and M25 J2. There are no plans to upgrade the A228 & A227 junctions with the M2/A2 to enable frictionless slips and mitigate rat running through local villages. Addressing these other issues would help to keep traffic on the main trunk roads. 15. The residents of Cobham, Sole St & the surrounding lanes within our parish are seriously concerned about the effect of closed roads and increased traffic on their daily lives and there appears to have been very little consideration for these people. 16. The removal of the services at the start of the journey north or the journey east may encourage drivers to seek a rest stop away from the strategic network putting more pressure on local roads and facilities This comment also applies to the Cobham service station which is due to close early in the construction programme. 17. Sole Street is in need of a footway between Scratton Fields and Round Street, and Cobham Parish Council would like to see this provided as part of the Lower Thames Crossing legacy and impact mitigation. There will be an increase in local traffic and this is needed for the safety of pedestrians using Sole Street. This would also improve safety for school children catching buses to school from Sole Street bus stops. 18. Scotland Lane needs to be downgraded from a byeway to a bridleway for the safety of other uses of this rural path. CPC would also wish for it to remain as a bridleway once the construction phase has completed. Cobham Parish Council - Feb 2023"

BTF Partnership on behalf of Cole Family
"Representations on behalf of Alex Nyman Alison Jean Bush Amanda Mary Harborne Ann Louise Cole Chloe Evans C.H. Cole & Sons (Mill House) C.H. Cole & Sons (Heath Place) C.H. Cole & Sons (Cherry Orchard) Diana Mary Cole Edith Marion Cole Edward Hodson Grace Elizabeth Watson Harry Hodson James Andrew Cole Jeremy Paul Godsmark Finnis Jessica Bush Kathryn Ksenia Travis Natalie Bush Oliver Charles Finnis Riverside Willows Ltd Saffron Gardens Investments Ltd Sheila Elizabeth Hodson Sue Cole Thomas Nyman Toby Robert Finnis Walton Common Limited Willow Marsh Ltd To be referred to as the “Cole Family” care of Cherry Orchard Farm Conways Road Orsett Grays Essex RM16 3EL • There has been regular, detailed, and constructive correspondence and meetings with the Applicant since April 2017 on all aspects of the Project. The parties are developing a Statement of Common Ground and would hope to progress separate agreements for other matters. Opportunity to acquire land by agreement has been discussed but has not progressed at this stage. • There are a number of issues that we wish to bring to the Planning Inspectorate’s attention for the examination process and these to include: 1. Concern over the lack of evidenced soil management plans for areas of land affected by the scheme on a temporary basis. 2. Lack of information from the applicant on the imposed deeds of easement relating to enabling works and diverted services as well as the lack of information obtained and passed on to the Coles regarding these enabling works and the subsequent management control of these works. 3. Further detailed design requirements and justification for the extent of the proposed flood mitigation works and in particular around the Cole’s irrigation reservoir, together with potential implications arising from likely contaminants to the water source. 4. Whilst acknowledging that the Applicant has reduced the areas of permanent land take for environmental and ecological mitigation land, the Cole’s have concerns at the extent of the land required; the methodology adopted in assessing these areas; whether the Applicant is ultimately acquiring land for its own claim for Carbon Offset and Biodiversity Net Gain rather than simply for mitigation purposes; and ongoing management and access requirements to manage these areas and prevent anti-social behaviour and unauthorised public access. 5. The Coles object to the compulsory acquisition of their freehold land to relocate a Travellers site. 6. Whilst the Applicant has produced certain traffic modelling, ultimately the contractor appointed is likely to close roads temporarily during the construction phase. Without contractor commitment, the Coles have concerns over the future running and subsequent viability of their farming enterprises. 7. Further detail is required regarding dust and air pollution in order to understand the potential impact on these elements and how these will affect high value crops planted in the vicinity of the construction areas. As an example, if dust and other contaminants become airborne and affects crops grown for human consumption, which are not processed, then this will also have a catastrophic effect on the Cole’s farming businesses and exposes them to loss of valuable agreements and to potential prosecution. The Applicant should fully indemnify the Coles against any potential exposure to these effects. 8. Walkers, Cyclists & Horse Riders - From the outset the Coles have expressed their concern and strong objection to any additional access rights that may be sought over the Coles land. There is no statutory obligation to improve routes for walkers, cyclists and horse riders in the statutory process. The Coles will challenge any suggested additional rights that are being considered. The concern specifically relates to anti-social behaviour and concern regarding safety and security. Criminal activities arise from misuse of existing public rights of way and this statement can be corroborated by the support from Thurrock Council. An example of this can be made to the unauthorised access to Southern Valley Golf Club, Gravesend, which had to close as a result of the Applicant’s proposed Scheme in September 2022. Whilst security was put in place when the course closed, the golf course has now been destroyed by motorbikes and other means. By increasing public access, the same results are likely to occur across the area and impact not only on the Coles, but also on all those that reside in the area. 9. The Applicants have been informed that their scheme will have a detrimental effect on existing development opportunities to include development Option agreements in place with both Bloor Homes and Taylor Wimpey. In addition, the Cole’s land known as Shed Marsh and Walton Common has been subject to Local Plan Promotion. The developable area of circa 70 hectares is located to the east of Tilbury Power Station, south of the railway line and west of east Tilbury. The site has been promoted for employment land through the Thurrock emerging Local Plan with representations to the Regulation 18 Call for Sites Consultation (2018) and the Regulation 18 Issues and Options 2 Consultation (2019). A plan of the area can be provided. This land was included as a potential growth location for employment land within the Issues and Options 2 Consultation. The majority of the land has been identified as being required for the LTC both in terms of permanent land acquisition for construction and temporary land required for utilities, and permanent acquisition of rights for easements. This is a significant land take of a location identified for strategic employment growth. As a result of the LTC the Shed Marsh area and other land has been “blighted” and will almost certainly be identified as being undeliverable. Subsequently it is anticipated that through the emerging Local Plan process significant areas of the Cole’s land will be excluded. The result will be that the Cole’s will suffer significant financial loss due to the inability to bring forward these sites. 10. The farm irrigation network would also be extensively impacted by the Scheme. The parties are actively discussing an agreement to mitigate the impact of construction works on the irrigation network which is fed from an abstraction point at the Low Street reservoir, but matters are not resolved. 11. The parties are in ongoing discussions regarding the proposed replacement common land from both Orsett Fen and Tilbury Green. However, the Coles challenge the Applicant that additional land area is required to be compulsory purchased for mitigation over and above the area required for the Scheme and considers this excessive use of compulsory powers. 12. Concern is expressed over re-wetting of the current Orsett Fen land to be compulsory purchased and the impact further down the line and the increase and change in potential flood zone in the surrounding farm land. 13. The Coles have concerns about the use of the Linford Well for the supply of water to the north portal construction site and the tunnel boring machines. The Applicant considers the risk to be negligible as set out in the Environmental Statement (Application Document 6.3) Appendix 14.5 - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment (HyRA). Discussions are ongoing to establish a suitable mechanism for appropriate compensation should there be any impact on farming operations."

Colin Kidner
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces"

Cycle Advocacy Network
"Cycling UK’s Cycle Advocacy Network (CAN) brings together people with a shared interest in creating the conditions that enable more people to cycle, including better infrastructure for cycling and safer roads. The routes and facilities included within the Lower Thames Crossing scheme to provide for people who wish to cycle for their short everyday journeys and longer trips should meet the following design criteria:- • Coherence • Directness • Comfort • Attractiveness • Safety CAN will demonstrate that Highways England have not met their design obligations with respect to:- • Providing facilities for people who cycle to use the new tunnels to cross the Thames, e.g. via a shuttle vehicle service • Failing to provide for people who wish to cycle where new cycle route networks cross HS1 on overbridges adjacent to the Marling Cross Hares Bridge, Henhurst Road and Brewers Road • Proposing to dedicate many new and improved cycle routes as bridleways or permissive paths, whilst providing negligible information on proposed widths, surface materials, drainage, lighting and ongoing maintenance of such routes within the DCO application. CAN will restrict their submissions on the matter of cycle route networks to those proposed for elements of the scheme which lie south of the river Thames."

David Cowlbeck
"I wish to make representation with respect to the following areas of concern: - Wildlife - the LTC development would have severe harmful implications to wildlife and habitats, from Biodiversity loss of native water voles, reptiles and rare insects. As well as damage to habitats, from local wildlife sites to ancient woodlands. - Displacement - the LTC development would result in the displacement of many residents, businesses, farmers, and landowners. Not only would this detrimentally impact livelihoods, homes, and businesses - it would have wider impacts on the local economy that will be felt for years to come. - Pollution, Environment, and Noise - the LTC will further worsen local environmental issues, with increased noise and lighting which would disturb communication, movement, breeding, and feeding of bats, birds, and insects. Along with increased traffic resulting in increased CO2 emissions which directly conflicts with the government's target to reach net zero by 2050. - Smart Motoway - the LTC would be a further rollout of the Smart Motorway system, which has proved highly controversial with recent statistics (report by the BBC) showing that on one stretch of the M25 that removed the hard should under the Smart Motorway system had seen a 20-fold increase in roadside near misses."

Debra Malyon
"Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Derek West
"I object to the proposed lower Thames Crossing on the grounds of the environmental impact and it is not compatible with with the Government's policy on greenhouse gas reductions."

Braeside Developments Ltd on behalf of DHL Supply Chain Ltd
"1. DHL supports the Project in general as a major infrastructure improvement and potential economic driver. 2. DHL objects to the lack of connectivity to the Thurrock Urban Fringe where various growth areas have been identified by Thurrock Council. 3. DHL supports the safeguarding of the potential for the delivery of the Tilbury Link Road but objects as this does not currently include an equivalent link to the east to support the East Tilbury growth sites."

Dr David Macpherson
"I strongly object to the Lower Thames Crossing presently under consideration. These enormously expensive - did I read possibly £5 billion ? - and highly destructive infrastructure projects must be stopped because of the damage they do not only to the global environment but also to the local flora and fauna; we've already been told that the U.K. is one of the worst countries in Europe from the perspective of irreversible damage to the wildlife in our country and building more, bigger roads has long been shown to just result in more traffic and more pollution."

Elizabeth Mary Murphy
"Additional pollution in our area and loss of productive farmland."

Frances Sladden
"I have lived in Thurrock all my life and the roads around us now , due to the M25 and Dartford crossing have polluted and destroyed so much and trapped us residents at times when the bridge is shut. No access or roads to leave the area. As a Community nurse for over 30 years that has caused many problems reaching patients. Now you intend to block the other end of Thurrock with this new crossing, bringing more pollution and traffic and blockages to the area. NO NO NO. This is not fair to the Thurrock residents & especially our children. There are other options that are being ignored. Show some respect to us Thurrock people. Permission MUST be refused. We only want what is fair and right for this area."

Staff member of Gareth Johnson MP on behalf of Gareth Johnson MP
"I am fully supportive of the Lower Thames Crossing. As the MP for Dartford, the single biggest issue in the town is the problematic traffic caused by the Dartford Crossing. Every time there is a traffic problem at the Dartford Crossing there are traffic problems in town. Building an additional crossing, well away from Dartford – The Lower Thames Crossing – is the only viable solution. Motorists in Dartford suffer from the misery of the Dartford Crossing daily. People can't get to work, to school and to their hospital appointments when traffic problems at the Dartford Crossing affect the town. Since I became MP in 2010, plans for an additional Thames Crossing have been in the pipeline. I campaigned to ensure this new crossing was well away from Dartford, as building more capacity at Dartford would not give motorists any alternative option and would add to the bottleneck. The Dartford Crossing was designed to carry 135,000 journeys – on its busiest days this rises to up 180,000 vehicles. The only solution is additional road capacity away from Dartford. The Lower Thames Crossing will double the road capacity. Now 70% of all freight from the Port of Dover uses the Dartford Crossing, The Lower Thames Crossing will mean much of the traffic travelling to and from the port will be able to avoid Dartford altogether and have a quicker journey. The Lower Thames Crossing will mean that people in Dartford can organise their time without having to factor delays in at the crossing. According to statistics from National Highways, almost every weekday 95% of motorists travelling northbound face delays during the evening peak. For two thirds of people, their journey can take twice as long. In Dartford there is huge support for this project, and I regularly hear from people who are frustrated and upset because their lives have been disrupted by yet another incident at the Dartford Crossing. The protest by two Just Stop Oil activists, which shut the Queen Elizabeth Bridge for 36 hours causing miles of queues and delays, is a key example of how one incident can bring the traffic to a grinding halt, leading to disruption not just for local people but for people travelling around the UK. Our area is growing rapidly, and the Dartford Crossing is one of the key things holding financial growth back. The new Lower Thames Crossing will allow growth and open the area to new economic opportunities. Moving traffic away from Dartford will also help to reduce air pollution as the cars snarled up at the Dartford Crossing, with engines idling, is one of the main reasons our town has one of the worst air pollution problems in the country. The LTC cannot come soon enough for Dartford and is overwhelmingly supported. It will reduce traffic and therefore reduce the chances of delays. I want to see this road built as soon as possible so that people can go about their daily lives without living in the constant shadow of problems from the Dartford Crossing."

Gary Davidoff
"Being a member of the public that will be living in a rural area of south Ockendon I’m worried about this impact of the new road firstly the disruption in building this new road the noise & the pollution in the area and once it is built & being used again the noise & pollution from it, how the house prices will be effected. South Ockendon will become an island surrounded by 3 major roads, I was looking to spent my retirement in south Ockendon not to die of Asthma from all the pollution."

Geoffrey Martin Gibbs
"There are higher priorities for addressing trunk road issues such as the A27 at Worthing."

Gillian Jones
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. •Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. •Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. •Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. •Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Graham Parker
"The proposed crossing will considerably increase the pollution in Thurrock which already has a Thames crossing. The route will ruin the countryside disturbing many species of wildlife and vegetation. The propose route does not appear to have taken alternative routes into consideration eg a Canvey crossing which already has a good road structure in place with the A127 and A130 which would result in alot less harm to the countryside and wildlife/vegetation. Why should the people of Thurrock be landed with the catastrophic harm to its health and damage to wildlife and vegetation ???"

Gravesham Rights of Way Committee
"Our members are concerned with the impact the crossing, both during construction and in operation, will have on the rural areas and villages where they live and the countryside access enjoyed by all in Gravesham. We are concerned about increased motor traffic on surrounding narrow rural roads that will impact the enjoyment and safety of local people going about their daily lives and also the general population accessing the many open spaces and public rights of way. Our countryside access user groups welcome the proposed new public rights of way being created but have concerns with the lack of detail as to how they will be surfaced, who can use routes -walkers, cyclists, horse riders, will they be safely accessible without having to cross busy roads and what will their legal status be - Definitive Public Right of Way or some other status? What of the existing public rights of way network? How will construction and operation impact on use of the routes for all users and will they to be able to safely access them along busier local roads? The creation of several areas of nature conservation have been proposed. We would like to see, some, if not all, of these areas having public access. Our organisation has existed since 1974 and we have been consulted on numerous major infrastructure projects over the years - most recently the Wainscott Byass, HS1 High speed rail line and A2 widening. All of these projects have made a number of promises about improvements to countryside access and public rights of way but many of these promises were broken or poorly implemented once the construction was over. We look forward to being able to give further and specific details on the areas of concern in our Written Representation during the Examination."

James Adams
"I am wholly in support of Essex Wildlife Trust's fundamentally opposition to the plans for a Lower Thames Crossing As they have stated there are serious concerns about the impact of these proposals on the wildlife and habitats of Essex. The cumulative impacts from this scheme in terms of biodiversity loss, habitat damage, increased noise, associated development and road lighting will have a serious detrimental impact on the south Essex landscape. I call on the Government to commit to an immediate review of the scheme on the basis of environmental and climate impacts. This is yet another nail in the coffin of our climate and the biodiversity of the once great country. Please see sense and stop the destruction of yet more habitat."

Jane Smith
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. • Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. • Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. • Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. • Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Jean Rogers
"This crossing wouldn’t solve the problems suffered in Thurrock, which gets gridlocked when there are accidents or breakdowns. There are a lack of connections and local traffic is unable to move due to traffic trying all local routes and estates. There is a massive impact to air quality and the crossing will only make these issues worse.Noise pollution will increase. Loss of farmland, impact on woodland and trees, wildlife and protected species. Divide the area of Thurrock in two, destruction of homes and properties. Total waste of over 10bn +, false economy and not value for money. Many years of construction work that by the time it’s finished will not solve any of the problems! Safety issues if it becomes a ‘Smart’ motorway. Increase carbon emissions, I would like to register so that I can attend meetings and be kept updated with the planning! After living in my home for 46 years I would like to be aware of what is happening!"

John Blake
"I am strongly against the Lower Thames Crossing for the following reasons and more. It's not going to do the job it's supposed to do. It's in the wrong position, and should have had more consultation on different options. These have not been available or discussed properly. They have not properly considered things like finally completing the M25 with a long tunnel that would bypassing the current crossing, and better fix the problems and keep traffic moving better. The cost is unbelievable, especially for something that is not going to do the job. I am concerned about it being designed like a smart motorway which is dangerous. If they took my preferred option it would solve the problems and finally complete the M25 as an orbital motorway. The low benefit cost ratio is disgraceful when so much money is being proposed to be spent. As someone who likes to go for walks and ride my bicycle I am concerned about air and noise pollution. It would take too much land, including farm land, again my preferred option of a longer tunnel would reduce the impact above ground. We need to be more self-sufficient with our farming to product our own food. This is the wrong crossing in the wrong place, for an extremely high cost, and is ill conceived."

John Short
"I would like to discuss issues of the Environmental Impact that LTC will bring to the areas where it is proposed to pass through. Issues such as Pollution - Heavy Construction, Construction Machinery, Dust, General litter/ Waste and additional Road pollution, Noise pollution associated with the Construction, i.e. Construction, Heavy Traffic, Machinery etc. and Wildlife Habitats disturbance. Other topics of discussion will be how Traffic congestion/ Diversions/ Road closures and damage will be managed to have minimal impact on local residents going about their daily business in the affected areas. Also will require to discuss Construction shift patterns - 24hrs/ weekends etc. Need discussions to ensure Sustainability of nature & wildlife in affected areas. And last but by no means least, discussions on the Mental Health impact of affected local residents and what will be in place to help alleviate stress, anxiety and other health issues related to a construction project of this size."

Josephine Delaney
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Julia Colley
"I am strongly opposed to the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. It is clear from looking at capacity figures that it would not solve the problems suffered due to the Dartford Crossing. Furthermore there is a lack of adequate connections, especially when there are incidents, which currently occur regularly on the existing crossing. I also have safety concerns since the proposed LTC would be a ‘Smart’ Motorway by stealth. The environment will be severely affected with a huge increase in carbon emissions (around 6.6 million tonnes). Since the original proposals the estimated cost has significantly increased - this is a waste of over £10bn of tax payers money, not value for money, false economy as other spending would be needed as direct result. With the current news being full of food shortages in UK supermarkets I am particularly concerned about the loss of and impact to thousands of acres of good quality farmland. The crossing would also destroy and impact woodland (inc ancient woodland), trees (inc ancient/veteran), hedgerows, and our precious greenbelt, with a devastating impact on wildlife and habitat, inc protected species. Local communities would see an increase in air and noise pollution, as the whole route fails on WHO-10 levels for PM2.5. The plans make no provision for cross river active travel, not viable for public transport due to lack of adequate connections. Local communities and homes will be adversely affected both by the new roads and by the disruption caused during construction; my own local area will be completely cut off inside a ‘toxic triangle’ of major roads. (And Thurrock already has one of the highest pollution levels in the country.) And it doesn’t even meet scheme objectives anyway!"

Julie Chaney
"As a resident of Essex and witness to what appears to be a huge amount of unbridled development (buildings and infrastructure) on open spaces right across our county, the Lower Thames Crossing proposal is a further attack on our dwindling green spaces. This would be a massive development, causing irreparable scarring and destruction of our natural landscape. It contravenes any commitments to reduce climate change by decreasing both traffic and pollution, and preserving nature. It does the exact opposite. 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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. - Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. - Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. - Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. - Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. The Thames estuary, like all habitats of its kind, is monumentally important for wildlife and should be protected AT ALL COSTS. This development offers nothing but total decimation of the entire area (both sides of the estuary) and death or flight for its natural inhabitants. The Dartford Crossing provides an established north-south route for traffic - we don't need another."

Karine Suhrbier
"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 listed land), wildlife and habitats, communities and so much more. It is estimated to emit 6.6 million tonnes of carbon, and would result in around 50% increase in traffic. If fails to offer any cross river active travel options. There are better and more sustainable alternatives. It fails to meet the scheme objectives and is simply not fit for purpose. It would be a huge waste of £10bn+++ of taxpayers’ money."

Katy Jarrett
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Whirledge and Nott on behalf of M Osborne
"Mark Osborne as freehold owner has instructed me to submit the following objection to the Lower Thames Crossing (“LTC”) application as his land is included in this. Engagement from National Highways The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex. There has been very limited engagement from National Highways and their agents with landowners to consider how LTC could provide additional community benefits and mitigate the loss of productive farmland. There has been various discussions regarding carrying out surveys on my clients land and requests for information but no meaningful dialogue in relation to the potential purchase of my clients land or ability for my client and occupiers to use the land under a management agreement (See below). Management Agreement My client had previously been informed that it may be possible to continue using the land after acquisition if a management agreement is entered into. My client is willing to explore this possibility but no further details/prescriptions of the suggested management agreement have been received despite requests. Business Viability If the land is acquired the existing farming business is likely to be unsustainable. The land currently subject to potential acquisition is integral to the business. There is limited land available in this location on the market to be able to purchase additional land to be able to continue the existing business. Environmental Mitigation The land proposed for acquisition is currently farmland and not zoned for development. Given the current status of the land and a significant proportion being grass land it is already a reasonable environmental habitat for various species. Other land not currently of such environmental standing should be developed for the purposes of the environmental mitigation associated with the Lower Thames Crossing. My client disputes the need that the land should be acquired as part of the scheme."

M Salter
"In order to protect our climate from further devastation, and meet our Net Zero goals, it is vital that we cut greenhouse emissions. The government’s Transport & Environment Statistics 2022 state that transport produced 24% of the UK’s total emissions in 2020. Road transport accounted for 91% of these emissions. Statutory advisers the Committee on Climate Change recommend a 37% cut in UK car emissions by 2030. Research has shown repeatedly that providing more road capacity induces additional traffic. The proposed Lower Thames Crossing would add substantially to harmful emissions, and therefore would seriously counteract the government’s Net Zero commitment. The government’s Travel Survey found that about 42% of miles travelled in England are for leisure, and that higher income families drive much further than drivers in poorer households. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions from cars could be substantially reduced without causing deprivation. The proposed crossing would also increase emissions with a vast quantity of carbon embodied in the construction materials, cost a huge amount of money which should instead be devoted to public transport and developing low carbon freight transport, jeopardise large areas of farmland and green space, and cause additional illness due to toxic air which fails to meet World Health Organisation guidelines."

Maud Waret
"In order to protect our climate from further devastation, and meet our Net Zero goals, it is vital that we cut greenhouse emissions. The government’s Transport & Environment Statistics 2022 state that transport produced 24% of the UK’s total emissions in 2020. Road transport accounted for 91% of these emissions. Statutory advisers the Committee on Climate Change recommend a 37% cut in UK car emissions by 2030. Research has shown repeatedly that providing more road capacity induces additional traffic. The proposed Lower Thames Crossing would add substantially to harmful emissions, and therefore would seriously counteract the government’s Net Zero commitment. The government’s Travel Survey found that about 42% of miles travelled in England are for leisure, and that higher income families drive much further than drivers in poorer households. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions from cars could be substantially reduced without causing deprivation. The proposed crossing would also increase emissions with a vast quantity of carbon embodied in the construction materials, cost a huge amount of money which should instead be devoted to public transport and developing low carbon freight transport, jeopardise large areas of farmland and green space, and cause additional illness due to toxic air which fails to meet World Health Organisation guidelines."

Medebridge Solar Limited
"Dear Examining Authority, I am writing for and on behalf of Medebridge Solar Limited (MSL), which a ground-mounted solar PV project at land off Fen Lane and Medebridge Road, South Ockendon, Essex (the Project). The Project was granted planning permission by Thurrock Council on 10th May 2022 (reference 21/02159/FUL) and it is expected to enter into construction in early 2023, with a view to being operational early 2024. MSL benefits from various land agreements in order to develop the Project. It is anticipated that the Project will connect to the electricity network at a substation located on land occupied by the adjoining Ockendon Solar Farm (Ockendon) and consequently, cabling will be installed between the Project and Ockendon. Furthermore, during the construction and operation of the Project, access will be required between the fields comprising the Project, from both Medebridge Road to the south and from Fen Lane to the north of the Project. Overall the Project is expected to generate significant benefits for the local community, including the generation of renewable electricity to power some 13,000 homes for an operational life of up to 40 years, whilst also contributing significantly to the local area through a community benefit fund totalling around £240,000. MSL would like to raise the following matters: 1. The proposed route of the LTC will run in between the land to be occupied by the Project, such that the Project’s southernmost field will be separated from the two northern fields during and subsequent to construction of the LTC if LTC is consented. MSL will require a means of accessing all parts of the Project from both the north (from Fen Lane) and south (via Medebridge Road). We would welcome a discussion to provide comfort as to how such access will be maintained during the construction and operation of the LTC. 2. The Project’s export cables will connect the three fields of ground-mounted solar PV panels and associated infrastructure to the point of connection located on Ockendon land. These cables will run underneath land included within the Order Limits for the LTC, which will be subject to either temporary or permanent acquisition. MSL needs comfort that these cables will not be disturbed by the construction and/or operation of the LTC. 3. Part of the land identified for the LTC is to be set aside as a potential receptor site for protected species (see sheets 35, 36, 38 and 41 of the Applicant’s Land Plans Volume C [AS-010]). However, the drawings appear to show this land covering an existing access track on Ockendon Landfill land and we believe this may be a mapping error. In any case, a corridor including this access track will be required by MSL for the ongoing operation of the Project, since cabling will be laid alongside this access track and the track is also required by MSL to access the Ockendon substation in future. 4. There is no mention of Medebridge Solar Limited in the Applicant’s Book of Reference [AS-042] however there are MSL’s interests within the LTC Order Limits. We therefore ask that the Applicant reviews the Book of Reference and Land Plans [AS-006 – AS-011] and adds MSL plots to both sets of documents. We would be happy to discuss any of this in more detail with National Highways."

Mel Perry
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Michael Ashby
"The 'Lower Thames Crossing' proposal supports reducing congestion at the Dartford crossing and providing more connectivity between Kent and Essex. The proposal also suggests reducing pollution in the Dartford area by spreading traffic congestion. The Dartford crossing connects directly to the M25 motorway and supports over 180,000 vehicles daily, including many large and heavy goods vehicles. The area within the M25 is subject to the expanding Ultra low emission zone. My counter-argument based on the above starts by questioning the redirection of congestion from the M25 and Dartford area into local Kent villages such as Cobham, Meopham and Thong, with a primary concern for the A227 main village road between the M20 and the A2 that currently is not within any congestion or emission expansion plans. This road would become a main connection route for traffic moving between the A2 and M20, compared to the current M25 supporting this throughput. Country lanes support this road and already have periods of high congestion, which will further be impacted by increased traffic flow for any transport vehicle that wishes to remain outside the M25 and make crossings via the Lower Thames. There is currently no suggestion from National Highways on supporting the local areas with congestion relief and increased pollution from the vehicles that either may use this alternative route due to M25 traffic or Ultra Low emission charging zones. Unlike the multiple-lane M25, the A227 is a single-lane, two-way road which would be unable to sustain any growth in traffic volume. I would ask for consideration in the planning application to ensure all local areas and communities are considered effectively with traffic management analysis for current and future expectations. I would also request that the planning application considers pollution mitigations in the areas which will be impacted by LTC, as the most polluting vehicles will be pushed further outside of the ultra-low emission zone and create a relocation of excessive pollution from one area to another. Thank you Michael Ashby"

Michael Brooks
"The proposed LTC would be hugely destructive and harmful and impact agricultural land woodland, wildlife and habitats."

Mr Michael Enifer
"The LTC in their notice for CPO has provided a plan of 1:100,000 therefore no person can see which land is affected . At the very least a plan of 1:1250 or 1:2500 should be given to those affected."

Muriel Blake
"I wholeheartedly object to the Lower Thames Crossing. It will definitely not solve the congestion and pollution at the Dartford Crossing and will cause even more problems on the local road network both sides of the Thames. It is a complex design that will be confusing to many drivers. Our air quality is already excessively bad and this will just add to it. It would be useless for public transport, as there aren’t the connections for buses, and no other options including for cyclists. I am worried about the dangers with there not being a hard shoulder as it would be built to smart motorway standards. Our emergency services are already stretched without this extra dangerous road, and we don’t even have a hospital in Thurrock. During construction building the road would devastate the area, and cause disruption to our everyday lives with roads being closed for long durations. At a cost of more than £10bn this is not a good way to spend public money which could be much better spent on other public services. When it was first considered other alternatives were not looked at adequately, and a lot of things have changed considerably since then. It would be better to get more freight off the roads and onto rail. I am worried about the impacts to nature, wildlife, and the environment. We need to be planting more trees, not destroying them. Ancient woodlands are irreplaceable. Once the damage is done to our environment it would be hard to replace. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. What is being proposed as mitigation is simply not good enough. I enjoy spending time outdoors and going for walks and am concerned about the noise and air pollution. Spending time outdoors is good for our health and wellbeing. The cost to the NHS for healthcare as a result of the LTC impacts needs to be considered. The LTC would destroy so much farmland, which would put farmers out of business and mean less land to grow our food. This would lead to more food being imported which has a bigger impact on the environment. We need to do better at a time of climate emergency, not more carbon and destruction of the environment. The public are not able to review and process the huge amount of documents to get information that National Highways withheld in consultation, so now we’re disadvantaged in understanding exactly what is being proposed."

Natasha Clark
"I have huge concerns that this costly plan will have a negative impact on the environment. It will destroy acres of natural habitat; including ancient woodland, established hedgerows and greenbelt land which will have a devastating impact on native wildlife, including protected species in a time of habitat loss and species extinction. Agricultural land will also be lost threatening farmland and food security. The huge increase in carbon emissions, air and noise pollution created as a result of the scheme is totally unacceptable in this time of climate emergency and the vast sums of money it will cost should be spent elsewhere where they will have a positive impact and not on a scheme that will destroy essential wildlife habitat; pollute the environment and ruin communities and the health of those that live in them."

Ockendon Solar Limited
"Dear Examining Authority, I am writing for and on behalf of Ockendon Solar Limited (OSL), which a ground-mounted solar PV project at land off Fen Lane and Medebridge Road, South Ockendon, Essex (the Project). The Project was granted planning permission by Thurrock Council on 22nd January 2016 (reference 14/00836/FUL), is currently in construction with an expected commercial operations date in August 2023. Ockendon benefits from various land agreements in order to develop the Project. The LTC scheme impacts the Ockendon solar farm ("Ockendon" “Project”). A renewable energy project owned by Ockendon Solar Limited with enough capacity to power over 12,500 homes. It appears the routes takes up a large part of the Northern section of Ockenden and is also extremely close to the location of the proposed substation and may also limit the opportunity for other renewable energy power plants to connect in the area. Additionally, the route of construction access could cause issues too in terms of it being very close to the solar farm which will impact access for operators of the farm but also cause increased dust (impacting on performance of the panels). OSL is working through the Land Plans [AS-006 – AS-011] and Book of Reference[AS-042] to confirm whether it has any comments on these documents. We would be happy to discuss any of this in more detail with National Highways."

Pamela Bunton
"I strongly objection to the proposals for the LTC in our area for the following reasons: * It fails on the WHO standard for PM 2.5 which is unacceptable * The carbon emissions would be over 5 million tonnes, how is this a green plan? * Concerned how the M25 and LTC would fit into the upcoming ULEZ zone they travel through. * The road users on the M25 Dartford crossing and proposed LTC are mainly very large diesel emitting HGV both UK and European lorries, not electric cars and projected emissions and impact have been under-estimated as such. * I object to the encasing of Ockendon between M25 and LTC with A13 and A127 boundaries, this is a residential area of thousands being written off to industrial waste land, this proposed plan taking the last open land (lungs) in the area...there are better solutions, more suitable areas, including at the existing crossing. * If built: the 24 hours a day construction over many years; the noise, mass pollution and traffic diversions * Continuous local road chaos, we only have one road in and out, which is heavily used and at the point of proposed LTC work and welfare units, the road and drivers can't cope. * There aren't enough connections for local road networks *The escalating costs billions by billions to a current more than doubling of original costs of £10+ billion (also up by approx £2 billion in less than 2 years: £8.2billion in 2021) and rising, is this the best spend of taxpayers money? * The completed road would not be fit for purpose and address any issues at the existing crossing. * I object to the proximity of the proposed LTC to our area in Ockendon, so close to houses, homes, schools, the impact of pollution is already high and would be devastating. * I object to the destruction and damage to the environment; from residents, to woodlands to animals to farmers fields and greenbelt. * The proposed LTC has not been a fair consultation, excluding participation by heavily relying on computer based research of very detailed specs * I am concerned that there has been a lack in number of community consultations, and focus on daytimes and in areas not as accessible with little option, such as Orsett Hall day event...preventing many from being able to attend. * LTC's lack of care for residents: A case in point, our meeting for local residents, we have one this round, is today at Brandon Groves from 3-8pm, just two days before this very form to register interest in the process has to be completed by, the 24th February deadline! * I object because the plans originally proposed were not transparent, such as adding extra lanes later etc and the details, proposed work and videos of 'how the road will look' (actually projected 15 years after completion) are all very and I assume deliberately misleading."

Persimmon Homes Essex
"Persimmon Homes Essex Land Interest: Land at Grey Goose Farm, North-east Greys, Orsett Title Number: EX584003 Status: Inside order limits Persimmon Homes Essex (PHE) supports the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) proposal in principal and recognises the strategic importance of this nationally significant infrastructure project. However it is essential that Thurrock council and Essex Highways work together to maximise the socio-economic benefits of this project. Thurrock has not had an adopted development plan that allocated new sites for housing since 1997 and uncertainty over the route for the LTC has been cited as a reason for the more recent delays in production of a new Local Plan. The absence of a development plan has contributed to the acute shortage of housing within the borough which has contributed to disparity between the strong employment growth and lack of housing development. Thurrock council has acknowledged that green belt will have to be released in order to meet housing need. It is therefore critical that the LTC only takes land that is necessary to deliver the infrastructure and does not provide ‘contingency land’ for environmental mitigation in unsuitable places (ie land that could be used for housing). North-east Grays has been identified as a sustainable location to accommodate housing growth both at a strategic level and as a smaller scale urban extension. PHE has a land interest, as detailed above, which is located to the north of Long Lane, to the south of the A13 and directly adjacent to the built up area of north-east Grays. Being located on the edge of a settlement boundary, visually contained and well served by local infrastructure, this makes for a sustainable location for housing development. It is vitally important that the LTC does not prejudice the future delivery of homes within the North-East Grays arc, including those at Grey Goose Farm. The Land Plans that have been submitted with the application entitled Land Plans regulation 5(2)(i) Sheet 29 show that some of the land at Grey Goose Farm has been allocated. The northern section has been allocated for permanent acquisition of land. Land to the south east of the site has been allocated for permanent acquisition and temporary acquisition. The centre of the site has not been given a land allocation. These areas of permanent acquisition, particularly the area to the south east of the site would sterilise the use of the site and results in it being unable to be brought forward for future residential development which is much needed in the District. Consequently PHE Strongly objects to these land use designations. PHE does not object to the temporary land use proposed as long as the land is returned to its former state and does not hold up development progress on the rest of the site or render the area unusable for residential development. Overall, whilst PHE supports the LTC proposal in principal, it is essential that the LTC does not prevent the council from delivering necessary housing development."

Peter Rowe
"I wish to register my opposition to the proposed Lower Thames Crossing and agree with the points raised by the Essex Wildlife Trust. these are as follows :- Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects. Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Yours sincerely Peter Rowe Register now"

Phil Church
"I am against the development as it simply in the wrong place. I live a mile from the existing Dartford crossing and having this new one only “up the road” will not make a blind bit of difference to reducing traffic. It’ll create more passing through West Thurrock in order to get to LTC. This will create a considerable amount of new pollution and this will also add to the toxic triangle. Thurrock has undergone enough concrete development and adding another major road through the borough will not work. Digging under the existing tunnels and running tunnels from J27 to J4 will reduce impact on the existing crossing rather than sending people on a detour causing more pollution"

Philip Maber
"Please include me as an interested party in the Lower Thames Crossing / Silverton Tunnel DCO Application. My concerns include: The ecological destruction, The Lifetime cumulative carbon and associated emissions - questioning the metrics used. The induced increase in road traffic - suffocates investment in active, bus and rail transport better, necessary options. The induced traffic would create increased bottlenecks and transport poverty elsewhere. The massive cost and minimal benefit when our NHS etc are so underfunded."

Pippa Hepburn
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Rachel Cross
"I am very concerned about the environmental impact and doubt An effective environmental impact investigation has been carried out. Some of the proposed build space is in sssi. There are ancient woodland and hedgerows which have dreamt bern impacted and more still to come. Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites.   Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects.   Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Rees Hales
"I made an email enquiry for which I received a response dated today 22nd Feb 2023. ref CAS-02290-D4P6C6 Of the many queries I raised given the location of my property being in the small hamlet of Thong were these two specifically which I have been advised to direct here:- - given the land that is being purchased under the DCO there is huge scope the reconfigure the country lane of Thong Lane to incorporate at footpath alongside the road right the way from the golf course to inn on the Lake. I would like to request the feasibility if this is explored and see no reason why this would not be implemented into the planning. -the land to the immediate rear of my property is in scope for National Highways to purchase under the DCO on a permanent basis. Is there anyway I would have the opportunity to discuss purchasing a small portion of the at the rear of my land in order to protect myself from development/exposure/public access? I have two young children and am extremely concerned how the change of use could impact a current secluded garden backing onto fenced fields, with much greater risk from a security perspective Regards"

Ria Bejko-Cowlbeck
"I wish to make representation with respect to the following areas of concern: - Wildlife - the LTC development would have severe harmful implications to wildlife and habitats, from Biodiversity loss of native water voles, reptiles and rare insects. As well as damage to habitats, from local wildlife sites to ancient woodlands. - Displacement - the LTC development would result in the displacement of many residents, businesses, farmers, and landowners. Not only would this detrimentally impact livelihoods, homes, and businesses - it would have wider impacts on the local economy that will be felt for years to come. - Pollution, Environment, and Noise - the LTC will further worsen local environmental issues, with increased noise and lighting which would disturb communication, movement, breeding, and feeding of bats, birds, and insects. Along with increased traffic resulting in increased CO2 emissions which directly conflicts with the government's target to reach net zero by 2050. - Smart Motoway - the LTC would be a further rollout of the Smart Motorway system, which has proved highly controversial with recent statistics (report by the BBC) showing that on one stretch of the M25 that removed the hard should under the Smart Motorway system had seen a 20-fold increase in roadside near misses."

Richard Hayward
"I have serious concerns about the impact of the proposed Lower Thames Crossing on wildlife and habitats in Essex, including: - biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects - damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites - increased noise and lighting, which will disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects - reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity - generation of more traffic with increased CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050 - associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Robert Kelly
"The noise pollution of the new road during construction and then after completion would be of an unacceptable level. The air pollution in Thurrock is already at an unacceptable high level and the new road would only serve to increase air pollution. The environmental impact of the local area would be totally unacceptable. The new road would destroy ancient tree's and woodlands despite plans to replant tree's that would probably not happen. The impact on nature and wildlife in the local area would be disastrous."

Robert Knight
"To the inspector In my representation regarding the proposed road construction I would like to raise the following points: 1. The impact of the excavation and road construction will have a severe impact on a fragile and precious waterside habitat that has been almost lost along the lower reaches of the Thames. 2. The new road and associated infrastructure will result in light and particulate pollution that will negatively impact the previous wetlands and riverine habitat. There appears to be no modelling of what this will entail and the environmental impacts. 3. The proposed environmental mitigation plans will actually worsen the environmental status of the region as these seem mainly focused on making the area more accessible to leisure activities rather than any intervention to improve or enrich the local environment. I refer to the proposed additional routes for leisure and landscaping to make the area more convenient for such visitors rather than to benefit the natural environment. In summary I oppose the plan as it stands as it has not honestly identified the likely impact on the local environment nor proposed truly substantive remediations that would result in a commensurate benefit to the ecosystems affected to mitigate the disturbance and damage caused by construction and presence of the crossing. Yours Faithfully, Robert Knight"

Robin Ball
"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, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites. Increased noise and lighting disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects. Reduced remoteness and wildness of the landscape and its tranquillity. Generating more traffic and increasing CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. Associated development and future developments will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces. Disturbance to local communities such as Chadwell St Mary, my ex home."

BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of Royal Mail Group
"Royal Mail Group Limited (Royal Mail) supports National Highways’ Lower Thames Crossing scheme, but is seeking to secure mitigations to protect its road based operations during the scheme’s construction phase. Under section 35 of the Postal Services Act 2011 (the “Act”), Royal Mail has been designated by Ofcom as a provider of the Universal Postal Service. Royal Mail is the only such provider in the United Kingdom. The Act provides that Ofcom’s primary regulatory duty is to secure the provision of the Universal Postal Service. Ofcom discharges this duty by imposing regulatory conditions on Royal Mail, requiring it to provide the Universal Postal Service. The Act includes a set of minimum standards for Universal Service Providers, which Ofcom must secure. The conditions imposed by Ofcom reflect those standards. Royal Mail is under some of the highest specification performance obligations for quality of service in Europe. Its performance of the Universal Service Provider obligations is in the public interest and should not be affected detrimentally by any statutorily authorised project. Royal Mail’s postal sorting and delivery operations rely heavily on road communications. Royal Mail’s ability to provide efficient mail collection, sorting and delivery to the public is sensitive to changes in the capacity of the highway network. Royal Mail is a major road user nationally. Disruption to the highway network and traffic delays can have direct consequences on Royal Mail’s operations, its ability to meet the Universal Service Obligation and comply with the regulatory regime for postal services thereby presenting significant risk to Royal Mail’s business. Royal Mail has nine operational sites within ten miles of Lower Thames Crossing and its associated works. In exercising its statutory duties, Royal Mail vehicles use on a daily basis all of the roads that may be affected by any Traffic Management measures, partial or total road closures and /or any additional traffic during the construction phase of Lower Thames Crossing. Any congestion on these roads has potential to adversely affect Royal Mail operations. Having set out its requirements in various consultation responses / representations during the pre-application phase, Royal Mail has had helpful contact with National Highways as a result of which wording has been included within the Outline Traffic Management Plan for Construction at Section 2.3 and Table 2.1 (TMP Consultees), paragraph 3.3.20 (advance notification to Royal Mail) and draft DCO Schedule 2 Part 1 (paragraph 10 (2) - obligation to consult and paragraph 20 – details of consultation) which is in line with Royal Mail’s requirements. National Highways has accepted this wording as commitments, which if approved during the Examination and then fully implemented by National Highways and its contractor/s should provide Royal Mail with satisfactory advance consultation, notification and information on works that affect the highway network. Royal Mail is registering be an Interested Party in order to protect its position and ability to submit written representations (if necessary) to seek to ensure that the above referenced wording remains unchanged during the Examination and will fully take effect during the construction phase."

Sappho Brammer
"1. Noise pollution of new road when open 2. Air Pollution on an already polluted borough 3. Impact on natural wildlife and arable farming 4. Inconvenience, and disruption to daily life with the on going roadworks with noise, mess and pollution. 5. The impact of these with health implications on an already over stretched NHS 6. Impact to established businesses and the financial implications of the disruption to them with delays in deliveries and operations with the congestion and on going road works 7. Financial implications of the new road with additional tolls and inconvenience to local residents"

Sardra Conway
"*Diesel is not being used during construction. Will HE visit to check this is happening. When there is a problem will this be forgotten. *if diesel vehicles use LTC once it is finished these promises are empty. The Mayor of London is banning these vehicles from July 2023. Are HE going to follow this example. * when there is an accident on A13/M25 our roads are gridlockedwith ensuing pollution. There must be a way of prohibiting vehicles turning onto local roads. * This new Road is tearing up ancient woodland and demolishing listed buildings. Creating noise and pollution impacting the lives of local residents. In return we can expect a small park in Tilbury. For the impact on this community we deserve at least 75% of the million trees on offer. Instead we are getting 49 ha out of 360 ha. And you choose to improve Blue Bell Hill and Brentwood, two wealthy areas untouched by the LTC. It is important to have high quality LOCAL green space but HE thinks this is irrelevant in Thurrock even though HE is destroying Orsett, our prettiest village. * According to your map not many people in this area support LTC they are mostly in London or further north. Areas not affected. So their opinion is irrelevant * Why are 2 green bridges over A127 included in your plans. They were severed 100 yrs ago, they are not on the LTC route, and are within the wealthy Brentwood area. If they want them they should pay for them"

Pinsent Masons LLP on behalf of Southern Water Services Limited
"This relevant representation is submitted on behalf of Southern Water Services Limited (“SWS”). SWS is the appointed water undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 for certain areas in the south-east of England comprising the Isle of Wight and parts of Hampshire, Sussex and Kent. SWS is also the appointed sewerage undertaker for the purposes of that same Act, comprising a larger continuous area stretching from Hampshire to Kent, including the Isle of Wight. As a result, SWS is subject to a number of strict statutory duties for the supply of water to c. 2.6 million people and providing sewerage services to c.4.6 million people. SWS is therefore a statutory undertaker for the purposes of section 127 of the Planning Act 2008. Should the proposed Development Consent Order (“the DCO”) be made to authorise National Highways to construct, operate and maintain the proposed Lower Thames Crossing (“the Scheme”), it would permit extensive development within the Order limits in areas where SWS is responsible for providing water and sewerage services. To fulfil its statutory duties, SWS maintains a wide range of apparatus that is critical to the continuing efficacy of its services. If made, the DCO would authorise the exercise of powers over or near land in which SWS maintains assets and/or has other rights for the purposes of discharging its statutory duties. Unchecked, the exercise of such powers in respect of SWS’s interests would cause severe detriment to it. SWS notes the ‘standard’ set of protective provisions for the benefit of statutory undertakers contained in Part 1 of Schedule 14 to the draft DCO. However, SWS considers these to fall short of providing it with the necessary protections. It should be noted that SWS and National Highways have been positively engaging on these matters for some time and SWS sees no impediment at this stage to it being able to reach a satisfactory arrangement with National Highways during the course of the examination. However, absent such an arrangement having been formalised, SWS is obliged at this stage to formally object to the DCO application on the basis of the Scheme causing severe detriment to SWS’s apparatus and operations. SWS will continue to engage with National Highways with a view to reaching a satisfactory arrangement during the examination. As a final point, the Examining Authority should note that SWS is in discussions with National Highways in respect of submitting a Statement of Common Ground (“SoCG”) into the examination in due course. Noting the content of the Examining Authority’s letter dated 19 December 2022, SWS does not propose at this stage to submit a Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary (“PADS”), given SWS understands there to be no SoCG between SWS and National Highways in front of the Examining Authority presently. However, SWS would be very happy to submit a PADS alongside any SoCG in due course, if the Examining Authority would consider it beneficial. SWS wish to raise two further points of concern in relation to the Scheme at this stage, in addition to those previously raised in the above referenced RR, namely: . should the DCO be made, it would authorise works within certain of SWS’s groundwater abstraction capture zones – further information is required from National Highways to confirm that the construction and operation of the Scheme would not give rise to any adverse effects on these zones, and that sufficient mitigation measures will be put in place; and . given the Scheme involves the construction of a tunnel and cuttings, SWS requires further information on dewatering activities and tunnel boring risk (and any proposed mitigations), given that these activities have the potential to give rise to impacts outwith the Order limits. SWS will continue to engage with National Highways on these points, as well as those raised in the RR referenced above."

Stephen Baron
"This proposed new road tunnel is totally the wrong approach to transport in London. When we should be encouraging carbon-free transport such as cycling and walking and also an increase in public transport use, in the middle of a climate crisis it is madness to be planning massive new road infrastructures. Not only is this ruinous to health, but inevitably precious green areas will be used up by the road-building."

Sue Slade
"This will destroy valuvle agricultural land and communities. Its out of date and will not solve the problem at the dartford crossing."

Susan Bejko-Cowlbeck
"I wish to make representation with respect to the following areas of concern: - Wildlife - the LTC development would have severe harmful implications to wildlife and habitats, from Biodiversity loss of native water voles, reptiles and rare insects. As well as damage to habitats, from local wildlife sites to ancient woodlands. - Displacement - the LTC development would result in the displacement of many residents, businesses, farmers, and landowners. Not only would this detrimentally impact livelihoods, homes, and businesses - it would have wider impacts on the local economy that will be felt for years to come. - Pollution, Environment, and Noise - the LTC will further worsen local environmental issues, with increased noise and lighting which would disturb communication, movement, breeding, and feeding of bats, birds, and insects. Along with increased traffic resulting in increased CO2 emissions which directly conflicts with the government's target to reach net zero by 2050. - Smart Motoway - the LTC would be a further rollout of the Smart Motorway system, which has proved highly controversial with recent statistics (report by the BBC) showing that on one stretch of the M25 that removed the hard should under the Smart Motorway system had seen a 20-fold increase in roadside near misses."

Susan Francis
"I oppose this application because the new crossing will generate more traffic and increase CO2 emissions, which directly conflicts with the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050. I have other serious concerns about the impact of the proposal on wildlife and habitats in Essex, including: Biodiversity loss, such as water voles, reptiles and rare insects; Damage to and fragmentation of habitats, including ancient woodland and local wildlife sites; Increased noise and lighting which will disturb communication, breeding, feeding and movement in species such as bats, birds and insects; Associated development and future developments which will put more pressure on wildlife and wild spaces."

Swale Borough Council
"In March 2020, Swale Borough Council responded to the Lower Thames Crossing consultation strongly indicating that it could not support the published proposals. Our response cited concerns regarding the immediate environmental and ecological implications of the scheme, and the limited commitment that Government had made to address the impacts of this major infrastructure across the wider Kent transport network. We confirm today that this view is still held, given little evidence of progress in either of these areas. Our earlier response was clear that insufficient investment was planned in modal shift initiatives, and that the interest shown by government in these initiatives was vastly disproportionate to their potential beneficial impact. We remain firmly of the view that insufficient attention and investment are directed to the facilitation and promotion of modal shift away from road transport, in particular for freight. The Port of Sheerness offers great potential in this regard and we would urge government to engage in conversation with us to progress this – noting that our attempts to date to meaningfully engage government in the modal shift debate have met with limited success. We also reiterate our concerns regarding the significant pressure to which the scheme would condemn the wider Kent network. The Lower Thames Crossing would put unacceptable pressure on the already stressed M2/A2 and in particular key junctions such as J7 (Brenley Corner), and the M2/A2 - M20/A20 corridor. This congestion impacts much of east Kent as well as Swale and we cannot afford – in environmental or economic terms – to entertain plans which will exacerbate this. We acknowledged in our last response that some mitigation measures had been identified as potential targets for RIS3 investment (Brenley Corner and Dover approach schemes), but that this was a partial solution and we could not accept the tentative nature of the funding proposed. It is disappointing that no commitments have been made in this regard in the nearly three years which have passed since our last response, and that steps away from this investment have been indicated by the November 2022 National Audit Office review of RIS2 projects. We strongly believe that these wider network schemes must be an integral part of any commitment to the Lower Thames Crossing, and must form part of prior or parallel investment. The crossing’s designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) should inherently highlight that this scheme cannot be considered in isolation and we would remind government that the strategic route of which it forms part is of not just national, but international significance. As we pressed in the past with particular regard to J5 of the A249, modelling of individual schemes must take into account wider network changes in order to be effective and bring adequate assurance of impact. Consequent impacts must be modelled and mitigated and resources made available to ensure adequate and appropriate modelling takes place prior to any significant decisions being made about where to place further investment. In summary, we add to the nationally expressed concerns with regard to the economic and environmental benefits regarding scheme construction (which we continue to share) our regional concern that the crossing will displace congestion to the east and into Swale, threatening our economic growth and reducing local road safety, air quality and journey time reliability. These are an unacceptable sacrifice for the residents of the borough, the people who work and invest in Swale and the delicate and susceptible environment within which we live, work and invest."

Smith Leisure on behalf of Swing Rite Golf Ltd
"For 17 years Swing Rite Golf Ltd has operated Gravesend Golf Centre. The centre includes a floodlit driving range and a 9-hole par 3 course. LTC’s proposals mean the loss of the existing 9-hole course. We understand that LTC’s currently preferred mitigation option may be to relocate the 9-hole course closer to the driving range. The adjacent Southern Valley Golf Club, which was an 18-hole course with clubhouse, has permanently closed to make way for the route of the LTC. It was a predominantly pay and play based golf venue which opened around 1999. Paragraph 5.174 of the National Policy Statement for National Networks says the following: “The Secretary of State should not grant consent for development on existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, unless an assessment has been undertaken either by the local authority or independently, which has shown the open space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements, or the Secretary of State determines that the benefits of the project (including need) outweigh the potential loss of such facilities, taking into account any positive proposals made by the applicant to provide new, improved or compensatory land or facilities.” We believe that the specialist golf needs assessment carried out in recent years regarding the potential loss of Southern Valley Golf Club did not deem the 18-hole course and clubhouse to be “surplus to requirements”. Thus, given its significant loss to golf needs in the locality together with the disruption to Gravesend Golf Centre as it currently is, we ask that the Secretary of State considers whether further mitigation by LTC is required by way of “new, improved or compensatory land or facilities”. Potential options, amongst others, for golf loss mitigation could include the following: 1) Relocating and rebuilding Gravesend Golf Centre to an appropriate golf-related reconfigured design on the area of spare land forming part of Southern Valley Golf Club which lies to south and south east of the Cascades Leisure Centre. 2) Relocating and rebuilding Gravesend Golf Centre to an appropriate golf-related reconfigured design on a fresh new site nearby (to be found in due course). Vacating Gravesend Golf Centre’s existing site would then release spare land to Gravesham Borough Council for enhanced sporting provision directly linked to the Cascades Leisure Centre, which in any event is due to be demolished and rebuilt. It might also potentially release land for other uses such as infill residential development. With good strategic land masterplanning one would hope that the various stakeholders could provide a really positive regeneration of sporting provision in this area as a result of the LTC."

Teresa Webster
"The LTC is not fit for purpose. By the time it would be built it would be over capacity It is too close to the existing Dartford Crossing and therefore does not offer an alternative route. The crossing would bring more pollution into the immediate area which is already at an u acceptable level. The route has many flaws in design and route."

Whirledge and Nott on behalf of The Executors of the late R L Osborne
"The Executors of the late R Osborne have instructed me to submit the following objection to the Lower Thames Crossing (“LTC”) application as their land is included in this. Engagement from National Highways The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex. There has been limited engagement from National Highways and their agents with landowners to consider how LTC could provide additional community benefits and mitigate the loss of productive farmland. There has been various discussions regarding carrying out surveys on my clients land and requests for information but no meaningful dialogue in relation to the potential purchase of my clients land or ability for my client and occupiers to use the land under a management agreement (See below). Management Agreement My client had previously been informed that it may be possible to continue using the land after acquisition if a management agreement is entered into. My client is willing to explore this possibility but no further details/prescriptions of the suggested management agreement have been received despite requests. Business Viability If the land is acquired the occupiers existing farming business is likely to be unsustainable. The land currently subject to potential acquisition is integral to the business. There is limited land available in this location on the market to be able to purchase additional land to be able to continue the existing business. Environmental Mitigation The land proposed for acquisition is currently farmland and not zoned for development. Given the current status of the land and a significant proportion being grass land it is already a reasonable environmental habitat for various species. Other land not currently of such environmental standing should be developed for the purposes of the environmental mitigation associated with the Lower Thames Crossing. My client disputes the need that the land should be acquired as part of the scheme. Access Previous representations have already been made in respect of title EX246890 regarding how access will be made available to this parcel of land. No response has been received from LTC regarding these requests."

Whirledge and Nott on behalf of The Owners and Occupiers C/O of Buxton, Princess Margaret Road
"My client Mr K Osborne and Ms Janis Hayden as freehold owners and Mr K Osborne and Mr V Turner as occupiers have instructed me to submit the following objection to the Lower Thames Crossing application as their land is included in this. Engagement from National Highways The LTC project has failed to adopt a strategic masterplanning exercise from the outset that sought to recognise the wider implications of the LTC on existing and future growth plans for South Essex. There has been limited engagement from National Highways and their agents with landowners to consider how LTC could provide additional community benefits. There has been various discussions regarding carrying out surveys on my clients land and requests for information but no meaningful dialogue in relation to the potential purchase of my clients land or ability for my client to use the land under a management agreement (See below). Management Agreement My client had previously been informed that it may be possible for him to continue using the land after acquisition if he was prepared to enter into a form of management agreement. My client is willing to explore this possibility but no further details/prescriptions of the suggested management agreement have been received despite requests. Business Viability If the land is acquired my clients existing business is likely to be unsustainable. The land currently subject to potential acquisition is integral to his business. There is limited land available in this location on the market to be able to purchase additional land so even if compensation was paid for any land acquired it is unlikely land could be purchased to continue the business. Environmental Mitigation The land proposed for acquisition is not zoned for development under any Local Plan. Given the current status of the land and a significant proportion being grass land it is already a reasonable environmental habitat for various species. I am informed that in the past 2 years the site has benefitted from tree planting of circa 500 trees and over 50kg of meadow seed has been sown. The property benefits from a variety of wildlife including three bee varieties, various nesting breeding birds and adders. A number of nesting sites have been implemented. Other land not currently of such environmental standing should be developed for the purposes of the environmental mitigation associated with the Lower Thames Crossing. My client disputes the need that this land should be acquired as part of the scheme. These areas of land are not required directly for the Lower Thames Crossing Scheme as a public benefit, but used to offset any environmental measures which if required National Highways could do via private negotiation."