CLOSING STATEMENT 26 APRIL 2006

ACTION GROUP AGAINST THE BRIDGE (AGAB)

ST. MICHAEL’S RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (SMRA)

Many people care very much about the Borough of Bexley. When we moved here over 20 years ago it was the place we chose to settle down and raise our family. Friendly people, neighbours who look out for each other, within easy reach of shops, libraries, leisure facilities and education. We and many others are not prepared to see this ruined and our Borough degenerate, which is why we object to this proposal so strongly.

This proposed crossing is forecast to carry 17 million vehicles a year. TfL need to acknowledge that many of these vehicles will impact on the local road network, which is already struggling to cope.

TfL seem to have this notion that all the residents in Bexley stay behind closed doors and never travel around the Borough and schoolchildren stay in classrooms and never venture into the playground. To suggest that a person is only affected by the traffic that passes their front door is preposterous. People will be affected by the increase in traffic when going about their day-to-day business when travelling to work, school, play group, toddler group, shops, leisure facilities, parks etc.

TfL’s revised traffic model in our view is still unreliable, a view shared by the LB Bexley and by academic consultants commissioned by objectors. The lack of reliability of TfL’s traffic forecasts and assumptions undermine their evidence in relation to the air quality health impacts, noise disturbance, community severance and quality of life of residents.

The traffic model relies on many assumptions that may or may not be correct. TfL do not acknowledge that any substantial amounts of non-local traffic will travel between the A2 and the TGB, except in what they describe as “exceptional circumstances” when incidents occur at the Blackwall Tunnel or Dartford Crossing. Many local people disagree with TfL that these incidents are infrequent.

The traffic model assumes that very few people from mid-Bexley will now use the TGB during peak times. This ignores the fact that many firms will cover the cost of the toll for the driver to use the TGB. This omission is particularly apparent in TfL/314, which indicates there is only a 1% increase on Knee Hill (northbound) in the AM peak (+12 pcus).

The traffic model assumes no future increases in capacity on the Bexley road network even though Bexley say they may have no choice but to “improve capacity” in the future. It assumes the Blackwall Tunnel remains un-tolled even though LB Greenwich has discussed the possibility of lobbying the Mayor to introduce a toll at the Blackwall Tunnel if the TGB were to be built. It assumes the Woolwich Ferry will continue to operate. It also ignores the fact that many vehicles are fitted with Satellite Navigation systems and so TfL’s notion not to signpost the TGB is risable.

TfL also assume that tolls are set high enough to be a deterrent. TfL do not

take into account that long distance traffic and commercial vehicles, would be proportionally less affected by a toll increase when compared to an individual from a deprived area seeking employment as many of them are people paid to be in the car.

The TGB could result in being a local bridge for far less local people than TfL forecast. If this were proven to be correct, regeneration benefits would not only have disappeared in Bexley but would reduce in the other 4 boroughs as well, further undermining the stated objective of the TGB, which is supposedly to improve Regeneration.

The LB Bexley say “the overriding duty on TfL relates to traffic management not regeneration.” This was clearly illustrated again when Mr George suggested that the non-local off peak toll could be raised from £2 to £3 if traffic levels increased more than forecast (Day 86).

Some of Bexley’s key deprived wards now fall outside Bexley’s discount area.

Only two of the seven 20% most deprived SOAs (Super Output Area’s) in Bexley fall inside the revised toll discount area and less than half of the 30% most deprived SOAs fall inside the revised toll discount area.

Evidence already presented to the Inquiry by TfL’s Regeneration expert Professor Rosewell, has shown that there will be limited regeneration in Bexley as a result of the TGB. Prof Rosewell’s new evidence, based on the revised traffic model, shows that the total increase in potential employment in Bexley, with the Thames Gateway Bridge, has fallen to between zero and 500 jobs.

Bexley residents have been alienated by the process of inadequate consultation and then by the revised traffic modelling results. Not surprisingly Bexley Council remain as an objector at this Inquiry. “Its concerns have not been met. In fact they have been increased.” (Page 21, Closing Statement)

Even to the end, TfL will not admit their errors and apologise to local people.

The Gateway News is a monthly newspaper distributed free to residents in Erith and Belvedere (in North Bexley). The newspaper has been running a telephone poll since September 2005 to find out the percentage of people in North Bexley who are in favour or against the proposed TGB.

The results in February 2006 show 29% in favour of the TGB and 71% against the TGB. This is in stark contrast to the Mayor Ken Livingstone’s claim that 80% of local people are in favour of the scheme.

We are told that 700 residents attended the exhibition at St. Andrews Church in Brampton Road in September 2004 and it has been reported that those against the scheme outnumbered those in favour by 10-1. Based on these figures 90% of the people who attended this exhibition were against the proposed TGB.

Both of these examples may not necessarily be representative of a wider area, but are more recent than TfL’s results and may be an indication that people’s views have changed since the 2003 Market Research. This is particularly true in Bexley and we suspect in other Boroughs as well.

People’s awareness has been increased by the activities of organised objectors, not by TfL’s consultation.

During cross-examination on Consultation Mrs Hilliard (Day 84) was taken to TfL/202 by Mr George and advised that TfL exhibition staff at Morrison’s in Erith who had stated that she would not be affected by this scheme had correctly informed her. However, how can a member of TfL staff have had access to a document only recently published? The information at the time of the exhibition showed an increase in traffic on the stretch of Long Lane where Mrs Hilliard lives and so she was mis-informed by the member of staff.

2052/45 (Report of Findings September 2003) was published in June 2005. Page 21 shows that overall by Wave 3 of the Market Research, the majority (8 in 10) of East Londoners were not aware of any communication or activity designed to specifically consult with them about the TGB. Residents in Newham are shown as being least likely to be aware (90%). Bexley has 76% not aware.

Page 49 shows “possible reasons for using the TGB”. In Wave 3 (7 Boroughs) “visiting friends” is most often mentioned as a likely reason for using the TGB. This is followed by “shopping” and then “work”.

Based on these results, is there really an economic case to build the TGB?

The effect of the proposed TGB overall is to worsen air quality counter to EU and UK environmental legislation.

Admission rates for asthma in all age groups have risen in Bexley in the period 2001/2004 and admission rates for under 5’s for asthma, have risen overall in Bexley in both the period 2000/2003 and 2001/2004. The upward trend in asthma admissions is to be further investigated by the Bexley Care Trust (BCT).

Historically, areas in the North of Bexley have had a high reporting rate of respiratory illness, and especially asthma. The LB Greenwich report (2052/29) “Under certain meteorological conditions plume grounding of power station and incinerator emissions (both north and south of the river) from the east are also a matter of concern.”

Evidence indicates that low-level air pollution is continuing to have an adverse impact on health, particularly in the over-65 age group (2052/1/A2, Appendix 17). This is particularly relevant as Bexley has one of the highest proportions of people over 65 in any of the London Boroughs.

It is important to recognise that North Bexley is already ringed by 3 incinerators, a power station, various motorways and major A roads with the decision on the Belvedere Incinerator imminent.

The incinerators deal with the sludge from London’s effluent. The plan for a refuse incinerator at Belvedere, which is four times bigger than the sludge incinerator at Crossness, is to burn much of London’s rubbish.

Sustainable development should mean maintaining and improving quality of life for existing residents as well as future generations, not making it worse.

TfL forecast an increase of 121 road traffic casualties for 2016. This forecast comprises 114 slight casualties, 6 serious accidents and one fatality per year as a direct result of the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge being built. This, TfL state, is “a small increase in accidents compared to the without TGB situation.” Who, in this room, will volunteer to break the news of the death of a loved one to the relatives of a victim of an accident within the Thames Gateway? This is where statistics become reality.

Based on TfL’s assumptions being correct and the traffic model being reliable, this would result in 10 fatalities, 60 serious accidents and 1114 slight casualties over a ten-year period. How can this be considered small?

Bexley Council report that motorcyclist casualties in the Borough are rising (Appendix 27, Page 5, Bexley Road Safety Plan 2005/2006). The ‘Child Safety Audit’ (Bexley Council Road Safety Plan 2005/2006) studied data for children killed or seriously injured in the Borough between 1994 and 1998. (Appendix 27, page 5)

It says:

“Pedestrians accounted for two-thirds, and car occupants for one quarter, of the total casualties. Just over one-third of the pedestrians were on the journey to or from school.”

Increased traffic levels will be detrimental to both pedestrians and cyclists.

TfL cite Knee Hill’s restricted capacity as “a positive safeguard” if the TGB were to be built. It seems that TfL will rely on the complete inadequacy of Knee Hill to cope with increased traffic due to TGB as a means of mitigation. Surely this standpoint is wholly irresponsible. It is like letting a child burn itself to stop it playing with matches.

TfL’s model shows that as Knee Hill gets busier this prompts people to use the alternatives such as New Road, McLeod Road and Eynsham Drive to get through to the same area.

McLeod Road has a 99% increase in 2-way AM Peak Hour flow (TfL/208, Annex 1, page 6)

I wrote to the Mayor Ken Livingstone on 1 November 2004 and again on 15 July 2005 (Appendix 16 & 17) asking for him to publicly pledge that the Thames Gateway Bridge and its associated roads would not affect Lesnes Abbey Woods, Bostall Woods and Bostall Heath. To date this pledge has not been received.

“I think simply no politician can give a legally-binding pledge because everything has to be decided on its own merits at the time.” (Mr George, Day 86, page 107, lines 18-20).

However the Consultation Brochure (D827, Appendix A, page 64) clearly states “The Mayor, Transport for London, and Greenwich Council have all publicly pledged that the bridge and its associated roads will not affect Oxleas Woods.”

Therefore either the Mayor does not have confidence that this scheme will not affect Knee Hill and the surrounding ancient woodlands and heath or the pledge regarding Oxleas Woods is worthless.

It is not reassuring to then hear Bexley state that they “may well have no choice but to seek improvements to capacity to try and cope with the problems”. These comments did not apply directly to any roads in particular but are of great concern to many residents in the Borough and reading between the lines they clearly relates to Knee Hill.

Parks, gardens and open green spaces are very precious to local people. They help to increase people's sense of well-being and bring people together helping to create a sense of community. There are many individuals and groups helping to protect, conserve and enhance wildlife, habitats and historical buildings in Bexley. All of these benefit the local community, visitors to the area and future generations. Increased traffic levels due to TGB would put these areas at risk.

The Mayor Ken Livingstone irreverently referred to the Thames as the “Berlin Wall” in the East Londoner. Instead the Mayor of London should be promoting the River Thames for the beautiful river it is. An asset whose potential as a highway has not been fully utilised. As Jacqui Barter has already remarked at the Inquiry “. . . Nor do I want it to be regarded only as an inconvenient barrier to be crossed.”

On The 11th of April 2006 the Mayor signed his support for the TGB (TfL/ 308).

This document states, “Significant community health benefits from cycling and walking may occur because of the TGB.” The walking and cycling myth is perpetuated. Has no one informed the Mayor that even TfL accept that walking across the TGB will not be a daily activity for many.

The same document (para 4.44) states “…the positive effects upon the more deprived communities and groups such as those on low incomes, the elderly or those with impaired mobility could be disproportionately beneficial. ” It goes on to say that access to health care and specialist facilities will have a positive effect on health and employment. This is a desperate argument. Cynically delivered to provide the altruistic veneer that this outdated project requires in order to be considered seriously.

Curiously the elimination of exclusion is cited as another reason to have the TGB. The new toll regime paradoxically excludes the people of Bexley from the forecast benefits enjoyed by the other boroughs while the residents of Bexley are included in some of the less savoury industrial processes inflicted upon it by the rest of London.

The report goes on to say “The sustainability report prepared for the scheme confirmed that if the forecasts and assumptions are reliable the scheme will be compliant with sustainability requirements” Yet many of the policies to support this assertion are in various states of inadequacy. Job types are unknown and training policy is failing.

The report describes the differences due to the revised forecasts overall being considered “modest” but how can a 25-30 % reduction in the regeneration benefits of the scheme be considered modest?

Meanwhile the streets of Bexley will be mitigated into submission as a means of controlling traffic even though the only sure way to stop this is to not build the TGB.

Life for the residents will be difficult. The tolling system will become inflexible in order to cater for commuting workers driving in as an integral part of the gateway economy. The authorities will be reluctant to increase tolls as these workers make up the shortfall due to skills and training policy failure.

“We the objectors are not legally trained or represented. For us there has been a lot of sacrifice, fatigue and disruption of family life. Some of us have given up opportunities in education, work and quality time with children to fight this project. Others have only been able to give the time because of recent retirement. Assistance has come from many quarters within the community to combat the TGB. Such examples are free loans of halls, volunteers leafleting in the early days to make people aware of the TGB and recently to advertise evening sessions of the inquiry. Help with IT advice and equipment and of course the remorseless requirement for stationery. Without this help the campaign would have been impossible.”

Only yesterday another cheque was donated to our fund. Yet, with the exception of one noted individual supporter, individual supporters have been absent from the inquiry. This project is supposed to benefit the unemployed and disadvantaged. The inquiry has run for nearly a year and not one unemployed person has appeared in support for this project. TfL have not produced any non-expert witnesses. No individual supporters from Newham have appeared. Where are they? Newham is a principle applicant with a lot of deprived people but the evidence from TfL themselves shows a lot of ignorance about the scheme. The response figures are worse than Bexley’s (2052/45).

It is a fair contention that more people have shown themselves against this scheme than those for it both by letters of objection and especially by personal testimony. Democracy should really be upheld here and the scheme rejected. In a time when the virtues of democracy are continually being extolled and supplied to some Middle East states at great expense then we should practice this at home.

Half the traffic on the TGB will come from the existing crossings and the freed capacity on the existing crossings will be taken up by new traffic. Recently the Kent on Sunday newspaper had an article stating that the Dartford crossing is at capacity (2052/46). This was the lead to an alleged requirement for a road bridge further down stream.

TfL and the 4 Boroughs did not agree to cap flows on the TGB. Dartford crossing is, apparently, already full. Now another road bridge is proposed. Doesn’t anybody think that we are losing the plot? More traffic, from more capacity. The South East is over heating economically and demographically. There will be more pollution and strain on resources. It seems we will never learn.

We therefore urge you to refuse planning permission for the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge.

JacquiWise

Steve Wise

Terry Grant

Representing

Action Group Against the Bridge

St Michael’s Residents’ Association