6^{th May 2005}

Dear Mr Prescott

Following the ‘procedural’ meeting on 28th April 2005 I would ask that you consider the following points supporting a postponement of the Public Inquiry along with Mr Ellison’s recommendation & Notes of the meeting & our previous letter to you on 8th April 2005.

We were very pleased to have been given additional time in which to submit our ‘proof of evidence’ but still feel this is insufficient time to prepare due to non-availability of commissioned academic reports and on-going and lengthy requests for information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to obtain ‘evidence’ that we feel is essential for our case at the Public Inquiry.

Mr Ellison himself stated at the meeting the importance of traffic data evidence for example rather than ‘snap shot’ evidence of traffic/congestion that would be seen on site visits, video’s etc. Some of our on-going requests under the FOI Act are for this type of evidence.

Can you please consider the following points when making a decision on postponement of the Inquiry which I feel have not been fully or correctly noted from the procedural meeting held on the 28th April 2005 at Woolwich Town Hall.

Point 1.22, Page 6

The Inspector stated that ‘no complaint about the period of notice had been received by the Programme Officer prior to the start of the meeting’. This is incorrect as I wrote to the Planning Inspectorate on 17th April 2005 including this point in my letter & this letter was copied to the Programme Officer and the Government Office in Newcastle.

Point 1.26 (a), Page 7

The Inspector stated that ‘parties should not take the risk of not proceeding with their preparations on the basis of a start on 7 June’. The point objectors were trying to make is that ‘proofs of evidence’ cannot be prepared as we are still waiting on commissioned academic reports and for information being released under the FOI Act.

Point 1.34, Page 9

The Inspector commented on the fact that some people who had made representations to the Borough Councils were omitted from the list of those who had been invited to the PIM on 4th April 2005 and he suspected that this arose because those views were received late. This list however is not consistent, as some people do not even appear who made representations prior to the Greenwich planning control meetings on 23rd November 2004 and 14th December 2004.

Point 8.2 (f), Page 18

This point discusses the lack of availability of the Environmental Statement and amendments. It is stated that ‘full sets of documents only available to Rule 6 objectors’. However AGAB & SMRA are Rule 6 objectors and still cannot get hard copies of these documents without incurring charges by TfL.

Point 8.7 (a), Page 22

Terry Grant from the SMRA stated that he had written to TfL requesting an example copy of the leaflet and covering letter to people in Bexley but was still awaiting a reply. This point has not been covered in the ‘Notes’.

Point 8.7 (c), Page 22

I requested that the incorrect statement made by TfL ‘that could not be the fault of TfL’ be amended. TfL clearly state in their ‘Statement of Case’ that ‘Figures used in the Table (Table 12, pages 81-83) to note objections were taken directly from the two Boroughs Planning Report (D844 & D845).’ However there are clearly groups who did appear in the Greenwich planning report (PARC, Sustrans, Friends of Danson Park) who do not then appear in TfL’s ‘Statement of Case’.

Both AGAB & Brampton Flowers also sent in representations to Greenwich

Council who incorrectly do not appear in the Greenwich planning report and therefore this is the fault of Greenwich Council and not TfL.

Point 8.7 (d), Page 23

I have sent a separate letter to TfL and the Inquiry Manager regarding clarification on newspaper adverts/public notices and the cost of £30,000.00 quoted by Mr Charles George (TfL barrister) at the procedural meeting part of which is as follows: -.

‘Mr Charles George stated that a public notice advertising the 'procedural' meeting on the 28th April 2005 had been placed in 8 local papers at a charge of £30,000.00. I contacted the Bexley News Shopper who confirmed the cost of the public notice placed in their paper was in the region of £498 + VAT. Assuming other papers charged similar amounts I wondered if the figure quoted by Mr Charles George of £30,000.00 was correct?

I do not have an e-mail address for Mr George but would appreciate an answer in writing (e-mail accepted) from him or yourself showing a break-down of the £30,000.00.’

 Point 8.7 (f), Page 23

This point discusses the addendum to the Environmental Statement. The point that objectors were making at the procedural meeting on 28th April 2005 was that at the PIM on the 4th April very little significance had been placed on this addendum when in fact it was actually a 55 page document also supported by a second document (volume 2) which I do not recall being mentioned at all.

I also raised the issue that the Port of London Authority (PLA) had submitted their ‘Statement of Case’ after the deadline of 25th March 2005 so that they could first take into account ‘further changes ‘ which ‘were awaited to the Environmental Statement from TfL’ and this has not been ‘Noted’.

We were not aware of the changes to the Environmental Statement until notification at the PIM on 4th April and even then were given the impression they were not of any significance ‘It sought only to reflect…’ However the PLA obviously thought they were important enough as they then registered their objection to the proposed scheme on 4th April at the PIM & submitted their ‘Statement of Case’ late.

Point 8.8 (c.), Page 24

This point states that ‘Greenwich consulted widely in respect of the planning application both in its own area and in neighbouring parts of Bexley.’ When? Where? How? What form of consultation did this entail, as I do not recall as a resident of Bexley ever receiving any form of consultation from Greenwich nor found anyone who has. We haven’t even received any from Bexley Council. Maybe this point could be clarified?

Point 8.8 (f), Page 24

I commented to clarify a statement made by Greenwich Council regarding photocopying charges and this again has not been ‘Noted’. Greenwich Council stated that ‘diy photocopying is available at low cost’ in libraries ‘run by Greenwich’. However it is not practicable to photocopy more than a few pages and many of the documents consist of hundreds of pages (The Environmental Statement is 409 pages long for example).

Also the documents referred to by objectors such as AGAB were representations to Greenwich Council that could not be taken from Council buildings and so therefore objectors either paid the charges quoted (£41 & £6) or went without. There was no alternative.

Point 8.8 (g), Page 25

‘AGAB had been provided with a consultation report it requested’.

This statement by TfL is incorrect. I requested to see the actual ‘consultation questionnaire responses’ under the FOI Act in December 2004 and this request is still being denied even after an internal review. TfL sent me a copy of the Consultation report instead which although helpful is not what I requested.

The document I have requested as a hard copy & not yet got (except if I pay) is the Environmental Statement.

I really do hope you will take these points into consideration when considering a postponement of the Inquiry. We asked that a transcript be taken at the ‘procedural’ meeting on 28th April and was told that this could not be justified. However the ‘Notes’ do not fully reflect what took place on that day.

With Regards

Jacqui Wise and Steve Wise

Action Group Against the Bridge (AGAB)

Terry Grant

St.Michael’s Residents’ Association (SMRA)