The Planning Inspectorate

Room 4/01 Kite Wing

Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Temple Quay

Bristol BS1 6PN

17^{th April 2005}

Ref: APP/G5750/V/05/1174146 & APP/E5330/V/05/1174147

Dear Alan Langton

Thank you for your reply dated 12th April 2005 in response to our letter to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Please also forward our thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister for agreeing to talk to us on Monday 11th April when he visited Bexleyheath and accepting receipt of our letter in person.

His comment that we were ‘aggro merchants’ was however very disturbing and one we found most disrespectful. This is supposed to be a democratic country with freedom of speech. We were voicing our opinions about a proposed scheme that we feel does not take into account ‘existing’ communities and the pollution that will affect the health of everyone in the future.

We are even more concerned that the Secretary of State who is to make that final decision on the Thames Gateway Bridge has already shown his partiality by referring to legitimate campaigners as, and I quote ‘a bunch of aggro merchants’. How can we have faith in such a biased decision maker whose idea of democracy in action is to slug someone on the jaw during the 2001 election hustings.

In the Bexley magazine Cllr Chris Ball, Leader of Bexley Council states ‘One of the most important events coming up is the commemoration of the end of World War II. Bexley will host a party for many of our residents who played a part in securing the democracy that you and I enjoy today.’

May we point out from the start that we will continue to call for a postponement to the Public Inquiry until the Autumn as we believe strong and valid reasons were raised at the pre-inquiry meeting for a postponement that we see as having been mainly ignored.

If the Inspector has been replaced due to what we see as having been a definite conflict of interest then can the notes legally stand? Was his decision to reject the postponement legal or valid? Was he within his rights to ‘close’ the meeting instead of ‘adjourning’ the meeting?

We are pleased that the ‘issue of the possible postponement of the inquiry’ is at least on the Agenda, which acknowledges our struggle to have this issue discussed on the previous Agenda. It is a positive step in the right direction. However we are concerned that it is to ‘be considered at a late stage on the agenda’ as we feel it should take a higher priority.

It is not clear if the Inspector will have the power to make a decision on postponement at the meeting or whether the Deputy Prime Minister will make that decision after receiving the notes/minutes of the meeting. It seems sensible therefore to address this at the beginning of the meeting. Will we be putting our points forward for a postponement for the Inspector to hear or for the Notes/Minutes to accurately record this for the Deputy Prime Minister to read?

This then raises a further issue. We feel in this day of technology and on a project so large, complex and controversial as the Thames Gateway Bridge, minutes of meetings have been atrocious. This is not the fault of the Minute takers but the rules that apply to accurately recording these meetings that need changing. Minutes at both the LB Bexley and the LB Greenwich planning meetings were wholly inadequate and there is no official recording of many crucial points. Similarly points have been omitted from the Minutes of the pre-inquiry meeting although we recognise that this can be addressed at the new meeting on 28th April. However this is not the same as recording what was actually said at the time.

We would like therefore to officially request that a transcript be made of the next meeting on the 28th April 2005 so that an accurate and detailed record can be sent to the Deputy Prime Minister.

We also notice that your reply letter states that a further ‘procedural meeting’ will be held prior to the opening of the Inquiry. If it is a ‘further’ procedural meeting we find this confusing. The first meeting was a ‘pre-inquiry meeting’. Is this then a ‘pre-inquiry meeting’ or was the ‘pre-inquiry meeting’ on the 4th April actually a ‘procedural’ meeting?

This point is important as we were informed on 13th April 2005 by your office that a ‘pre-inquiry meeting’ required a minimum of 3 weeks notice and that a start date of the second week in May was likely. Later that same day we received an e-mail from Graham Groom stating the start date as 28th April. For most people receiving this notification by post on 15th April this is less than 2 weeks notice.

Another issue that has still not been addressed is the question of notification in the ‘local’ press of meetings. I wrote to TfL on Tuesday 5th April 2005 (the day following the pre-inquiry meeting) requesting details of the paper(s) that the notice that Charles George (TfL legal representative) had referred to had been placed in. I also listed the four main ‘local’ papers that some, but not all, people receive. This letter was also copied to Graham Groom (Inquiry Manger) and Linda Smart (Government office, Newcastle).

We have still not had a reply. Maybe I made the mistake of not asking for this information under the Freedom of Information Act, which at least would have afforded us an answer in 20 working days. That is of course if it does not have to go to an internal review or to the Commissioner’s office in Cheshire that of course could take many, many months. Surely a simple question should have a simple and prompt reply.

We have been informed that a similar situation occurred on the Belvedere Incinerator Inquiry. Notices were placed in ‘local’ papers but people stated they had not seen them because they appeared in the South London Press that the majority of local people do not buy. However the promoter had satisfied their legal requirements by having placed the notice in this paper. TfL are aware of which papers are ‘local’ and well read or should have the capacity to find out.

We do not know which paper(s) the notice(s) were placed in but I hope that TfL have taken note of the actual ‘local’ papers some but not all people receive. If not this is a clear indication that they are deliberately placing the notices where they know the majority of people will NOT see them.

Your letter concludes that you ‘hope that the foregoing provides re-assurance that your concerns are being taken seriously’. Our answer to this is that we are not re-assured, if anything we feel very disillusioned that the whole process is undemocratic and weighted in the favour of the promoters.

What would have happened if we and others had not raised the issue of Mr Baker’s conflict of interest with Halcrow? He would still be the Inspector.

What would have happened if we and others had not lobbied for a new pre-inquiry meeting? We would not have got one.

Unless challenges are made things do not change. This may make your job harder but that is democracy attempting to be heard.

We will only be re-assured when we have a postponement of the Public Inquiry to the Autumn. It is the only democratic way forward and it is what we will continue to lobby for.

It is wrong however that we need to lobby.

It is using up people’s precious time and taking us away from the important job of preparing our comments on other ‘Statement of Cases’ as well as preparing our ‘proof of evidence’, chasing ‘Freedom of Information’ requests, raising money to pay for photocopying charges and documents, reading our children bedtime stories and having some normality back in our lives.

Yours Sincerely

TEL: 020 8301 4243

TEL:020 8298 1105 MOBILE: 0780 1265713