The Community Strategy for Bexley (TfL/97, page 10) says, “One of Bexley’s strengths is its people. It is a stable borough with people tending to settle here and stay a long time. Residents are committed to their local neighbourhood and enthusiastic in their contributions to the life of their communities.”

Bexley has low unemployment. It has a leading manufacturing location with Belvedere the second largest manufacturing area in the capital. Bexleyheath is one of the most economically successful centres in London

Dr Barnett quotes evidence from Professor Bridget Rosewell as reason for the Bexley Care Trust supporting the proposed TGB “A variety of research based on London has shown how those areas with better accessibility have both more jobs and more residents. The TGB area has lower levels of accessibility than other parts of London and higher levels of deprivation. Accessibility in Bexley is only half as good as the (London) average”.

If this is correct why is unemployment in Bexley below the London average?

“In March 2002 to February 2003, the unemployment rate in Bexley was too small for a reliable estimate to be published. This compares with 7 per cent in the London and 5.1 per cent in the UK.” (Source: www.statistics.gov.uk/llfs/dl/Bexley.xls)

We believe with TGB Bexley could become “unstable” and degenerate.

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, help with IT advice and equipment and of course the remorseless requirement for stationary. Without this help the campaign would have been impossible. However we have valuable experience in that we live/work/travel in the area to be affected by the TGB. Indeed a letter (Appendix 5) from LB Bexley to Halcrow says “...local knowledge should not be discounted as it reflects what a large number of people will do based on actual experience.” Do not forget it is also what they know of an area and their common sense approach should not be discounted.

It should be accepted that the people fighting this project are not the usual anti road lobby. The residents that do not want the TGB have viable interests in the well being of the local community because it is where sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, grandparents and children work, live, play and get educated. Bexley is a family town. It boasts Brownie, Scouts, Guides and Cadet clubs. There are thriving community centers and churches. In short the area is a stable and socially prosperous place. That is why some local people have given up so much to meet this proposal head on and why others have lent so much support.

Bexley is not some place that a developer can just put traffic through because someone else, in authority, just looked at a map. The people here will not stand for such arbitrary consideration.

The case for regeneration is by no means secure. They want houses and people but there is no water. They want affordability in a flood plain. The future for residents near the bridge could be high traffic levels, high insurance premiums, periodic water shortages and lack of jobs through an adult education strategy that is discoordinated.

Local PCT’s are in debt and there is a local hosepipe ban and yet 800,000 new people will be invited to this anarchic unsustainable mayhem. Scepticism over job opportunities for Bexley is heightened with the new tolling regime introduced to the Inquiry last November. This infamous plan may, we believe, lose jobs for our borough.

Nevertheless, even with all this doom and gloom, we are told that we will all feel less suicidal by the redoubtable Prof Rosewell. She is probably right. After all it will be difficult to drink yourself to death and you can only drown yourself during a flood. Death by motor transport and or pollution may be the preferred option.

Recently the Government was warned by the IMF that it may have to cut back spending. The Olympics are starting to look a little pricey. Foreign policy is set to get more costly. Personal debt is at record levels and there are major concerns about future energy supply that are by no means settled. Again the dis-topia that the TGB will inhabit looks full of the sustainability of a chocolate fireguard.

The true adverse impacts of this bridge are unknown but it appears increasingly likely that they are much greater than predicted by TfL. It should also not be forgotten that residents in Thamesmead and Newham, close to the proposed bridge, will be those who suffer the full detrimental traffic and environmental impacts and yet it is our view that many still do not realise the full implications of this or have the time or ability to voice their views.

Traffic congestion in the local boroughs is already a problem. The increase in traffic from the unwanted Bridge will be met, especially in Bexley, with mitigation. This glorious solution to a problem we do not want means local roads being restricted, blocked or otherwise modified to reduce traffic. This would be of hindrance to local people, again especially in Bexley, and yet again something else we do not want.

TfL do not think drivers will access the TGB from the A2. This astonishing assertion flies in the face of the common sense view of local people. TfL cite the toll as the reason why the drivers will not use this route. Time always rules over money. A unique project like the TGB has no precedent, Prof Rosewell does not want to compare TGB with other bridges, so how do TfL really know.

As John Elliot’s conclusion (2691/1/A1, page 46) says, “Once a new road is built it has done permanent damage to the structure and fabric of the area, and it is very difficult to undo.” We would go further and say that it does ever-lasting damage that cannot be undone. Is this to be the fate of Bexley?

The reliability of TfL’s traffic forecasts and assumptions underpin the air quality health impacts, noise disturbance, community severance and quality of life of residents. Farcically an economist and not an air or noise health expert carried out the independent health assessment of TfL’s Environmental Statement and its related health documents (on behalf of the NHS).

Evidence suggests health related benefits are negligible. Increased traffic levels with TGB would be detrimental to pedestrians and cyclists and to valued green spaces.

Road accident casualties and fatalities are forecast to increase with TGB. Evidence suggests they are likely to be higher than TfL forecast. “Bexley takes the view that the criterion concerning safety, in particular, is not met by this development.”

The effect of the proposed TGB is to worsen air quality counter to EU and UK environmental legislation. Air pollution not only aggravates existing health conditions but may “raise the risk” of developing chronic diseases such as asthma in the first place. Admission rates for asthma in all age groups have risen in Bexley.

Evidence shows that traffic noise is already a serious problem for many people. Increased traffic levels with TGB will make this worse.

Sustainable development should mean maintaining and improving quality of life for existing residents as well as future generations. We question whether or not this will be the case with TGB. PPS23 shows that “The planning system plays a key role in protecting and improving the natural environmental, public health and safety and amenity.” We do not believe that this proposed Scheme will meet any of these criteria.

Here is an area that needs redoing. Many organisations from Care Trusts to The Tall Ships Societies were not consulted. Many local people were not consulted except by way of the ‘pink’ forms sent in asking AGAB/SMRA to represent residents. Of these 2600 were submitted plus those sent in directly. In frank terms TfL should be required to do more consultation. In addition to these forms a number of people from North of the river lodged objections along with many from the discount area in Thamesmead. These objections are subjects of a database. Business objections in Bexley were also made.

No individual objectors from North of River have given evidence in person at this Inquiry. (TfL SAY) No individual supporters of the scheme from North of the River have given evidence in person at the Inquiry. In fact only one individual supporter has given evidence at one of Bexley’s evening sessions but he was also concerned about the traffic implications of this scheme.

It is unrealistic to expect the majority of local residents to be aware of the London Plan & The Mayor’s Transport Policy. In fact most policy directives are not the preferred reading of the average London resident. The majority of people have much better things to do like rear children and struggle through daily life. Most local residents were not aware that a new river crossing was still being pursued and it is wrong of TfL to state that residents should not have been surprised by this proposal. In fact many people we spoke to were not aware of TfL’s proposals for the TGB and replied “What Bridge?” People’s awareness was increased by the activities of organised objectors, not by TfL.

Local people were not engaged and consulted effectively and adequately. The Consultation Questionnaire was unbalanced and the Consultation Flyer showed a bias towards supporters of the bridge responding. The 5% response cannot be considered representative of people’s views.

In 2002 TfL had already identified environmental issues as a particularly sensitive area and anticipated that this would be the major cause of conflict for the scheme but chose not to include a question specifically on environmental issues in the questionnaire. We feel TfL representatives were disingenuous at TfL exhibitions and road shows in Bexley.

Deposit documents and information were not readily accessible to local people either during the consultation period or after. It should also be noted that guidance notes request technical terms where possible. This can have the affect of disassociating the TGB from real people/community. An example is ‘Visual receptors’ etc