Swanscombe residents breathe a sigh of relief at Thames crossing decision

Swanscombe residents breathe a sigh of relief at Thames crossing decision

By Melissa Hills, assistant news editor, Bexley and north Kent

The three crossing options the Department of Transport are looking into.

SWANSCOMBE residents have breathed a sigh of relief after plans for a new Thames crossing through the village were thrown out.

The Government threw out the proposal to connect the A2 to the A1089 road, north of Tilbury Docks, over fears it could jeopardise plans for the huge Paramount Park development which could create 27,000 new jobs. 

The news has been met with happiness but also frustration as North Kent residents continue to await a decision on Option A which would see another crossing built next to the current Dartford-Thurrock crossing and Option C, which would connect the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30 and would land between Coalhouse and Tilbury forts and travel north towards the Orsett Cock junction of the A13.

The other two options are to be studied further by the Department of Transport and environmental impacts will be looked into.

Graham Blew, town clerk for Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council, said: "We are very pleased that Option B has been dropped, but annoyed extra options were not presented like links from the ports. 

"Option C is our preferred choice of the three but we are very frustrated at the timing and that there is going to be further delays.

"We welcome the application into Paramount Park because of its employment options for Swanscombe but we also have reservations. "It needs to be correctly and we need to make sure there is enough infrastructure in place." 

Dartford councilor Bryan Read, lead member for urban regeneration in Swanscombe and secretary of the residents association, said: "We have been pushing for this since day one.

"It was a silly option from the start especially with the plans for the theme park which we support. "We have considered all the options deeply and we get affected everytime there is something wrong at the Dartford crossing. "We are most supportive of Option C or something further down the estuary, we think that's the best thing for everyone in Kent." 

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: "We had over 5,700 responses to the consultation and ruling out the least attractive option now gives some clarity for residents and businesses. 

"We are committed to making a decision on the location of the new crossing as soon as possible, but we recognise that whatever crossing location is chosen it will have significant impact for people in the area and the economy. "These are tough decisions to be made and must not be taken lightly." 

The Government remains committed to introducing free flow charging at the Dartford-Thurrock crossing by October 2014 to help with congestion in the short term. 

The new decision has been met with mixed reaction from local politicians and campaigners. Jeremy Kite, leader of Dartford Council said: "I’m very pleased that the uncertainty over a crossing at Swanscombe has been lifted. "It will do much to reassure potential backers of the Paramount Park proposals as well as lift the worry from residents in the area. "Almost the entire growth and business community of Kent have made clear that Option C is the only sensible route." 

Dartford MP Gareth Johnson said: "The investment we are looking at for Swanscombe its great. "It would be wrong to bulldoze through Kent without looking at the environmental impact, getting the decision right is the most important thing." 

Gravesham council leader John Burden welcomed the news but made clear he still isn't happy with the options. He added: "Our position remains, that any decision on a new crossing is premature if it is taken before the effects of removing the Dartford toll booths are known.

"The other two options, at Dartford and east of Gravesend, are to be studied further by the Department of Transport. 

"The latter would have a devastating impact on the green belt and threaten the villages of Chalk, Shorne and Higham including one of Kent’s best country parks. "I want the government to show more common sense and put off the final decision until after the Dartford toll booths are removed to ascertain the real scale of the problem. "A crossing east of Gravesend would potential endanger important environmental sites and lay to waste historic communities. "Worse, it would open the door to developers who would use this new corridor to fill in the countryside. "Once such a disastrous decision is taken the area would be blighted forever." 

Gravesham MP Adam Holloway was disappointed a proper decision had not been made on the crossing and vowed to fight for local residents.

Consultation and Public Meetings: Options for a new Lower Thames Crossing

 The decision on where to locate a new crossing will depend on a number of economic, social and environmental factors. And we’d value your views too on these three possible locations.

Option A would add a new crossing at the site of the existing crossing on the A282 between Dartford and Thurrock.

Option B would involve a new route to connect the A2 south of the river at the Swanscombe Peninsula with the A1089 north of the river.

And option C would connect the M2 in Kent with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30 in Essex.

We’ve also suggested a variant for option C which would not only connect the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30, but also widen the A229 between the M2 and the M20

Options for a new Lower Thames Crossing video

I’m at the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. This is the only river crossing situated to the east of London and has been providing a vital north-south connection since the west tunnel opened back in 1963.

Since then it’s been redeveloped to accommodate increasing traffic flows. The east tunnel opened in 1980 and this iconic cable-stayed bridge opened to traffic in 1991.

It’s a key link for many business travellers, haulage companies and holidaymakers travelling to and from Europe via the channel ports and the Channel Tunnel. But the volumes of traffic mean that the existing crossing has outgrown its capacity. Congestion and delay are major problems, and it’s expected to get worse in future.

The crossing is within the Thames Gateway area where major redevelopment is planned. This means it has a much higher population growth forecast than other parts of the country, and with this increase in population, inevitably comes traffic.

Congestion is bad for our health, bad for the environment and frustrating for drivers. It also has serious implications for the economy.

Government recognises the strategic importance of the Dartford-Thurrock crossing as part of our road network. That’s why the need for additional crossing capacity in the lower Thames area was acknowledged in the 2010 comprehensive spending review announcement.

The problem can only be addressed by creating an additional crossing. So the question is: where should the new crossing be located? The government has been assessing the possible options and is currently consulting on where it could best be accommodated.

The decision on where to locate a new crossing will depend on a number of economic, social and environmental factors. And we’d value your views too on these three possible locations.

Option A would add a new crossing at the site of the existing crossing on the A282 between Dartford and Thurrock.

Option B would involve a new route to connect the A2 south of the river at the Swanscombe Peninsula with the A1089 north of the river.

And option C would connect the M2 in Kent with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30 in Essex.

We’ve also suggested a variant for option C which would not only connect the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30, but also widen the A229 between the M2 and the M20.

There is still a long way to go before any new crossing will be built. Deciding on the location is just the first stage. Details on how the options perform against each other can be found in the consultation document along with further details on how the options were assessed.

There will be further consultations on the type of crossing, for example will it be a tunnel or a bridge? And on the specific route once the broad location is decided. There will also be more detailed assessments of the social, economic and environmental impacts of a new crossing.

But in the meantime, government would like to hear from you. This is a significant development on our road network and it is important that all views are taken into account. So please let us know what you think by responding to the consultation.

More details are set out in the Lower Thames crossing consultation document.
And if you would like to respond you can use the online response form.
Or you can email your response to lowerthamescrossing@dft.gsi.gov.uk
We need to hear from you by 16 July 2013.

If you prefer, you can get in contact with us via this address:

Lower Thames consultation
Department for Transport
Zone 3/29, Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London, SW1P 4DR

And once the consultation has closed, we’ll analyse your responses and report on the next steps.

Related documents

• Consultation on options for a new Lower Thames Crossing, written ministerial statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport
• Consultation on location of new Thames crossing, press notice, 21 May 2013
• Options for a new Lower Thames Crossing
• Lower Thames Crossing model capability report
• Lower Thames Crossing design and costing report
• Lower Thames Crossing operating costs, maintenance costs and revenues report
• Central forecasts and sensitivity tests report
• Review of Lower Thames Crossing options: final review report