“Why does Bexley Council feel that it is inappropriate for them to support a call for the postponement to the Thames Gateway Bridge Public Inquiry?”

Councillor Tonya Kelsey replied that the Council could not support a call for a postponement because the statutory processes had all been satisfied. The formal notification had been given correctly and the timetable had been known in advance. The announcement of the Inquiry had been given in January and therefore there would be 4-5 months available for preparation before the Inquiry time.

Mr T Grant - “I quote an extract from a letter released under the Freedom of Information Act from Bexley Council to Greenwich Council dated 22 November 2004 under the heading of Thames Gateway Bridge. I quote – “The traffic and environment impact on Bexley are as great, if not greater, than any other Authority. If through traffic is to be encouraged on to a particular route it should be where high traffic flows and robust flow speeds can be sustained by the highway infrastructure.” Can Bexley Council please confirm which roads or routes they feel are capable of high traffic flows and robust flow speed within the Bexley highway network in relation to the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge?”

Councillor Tonya Kelsey stated that she could not give a specific answer. The letter had been written after the Planning Committee which agreed to support the bridge in principle but to protect the interests of residents by asking for a traffic survey, a traffic impact assessment and also to make sure that proper measures were in place to mitigate any increased traffic flows. There were concerns about the Toll Order and serious concerns about health. Bexley was taking the concerns, not just of the residents that would be affected, but of all residents of the Borough very seriously. Bexley would be represented at the Inquiry by a Counsel and far from postponing that meeting, which meant to put off or defer, Bexley had actually arranged for lead Council Members to meet with Counsel in order to make their anxieties and observations known prior to the Inquiry so that Counsel when he went to the Inquiry was fully aware of the Councillors’ concerns, which of course would take on the residents’ concerns as well.

One thing that did worry Councillor Kelsey, and she believed it would sadden everyone to know that when this meeting was arranged, a lead Councillor had written in asking whether this meeting – this very urgent and high priority meeting – could be postponed because of the General Election. Presumably, that Councillor would rather be out knocking on doors and canvassing than putting forward the views of their residents and protecting the interests of this Borough. Councillor Kelsey said that that Councillor was the Member for Christchurch Ward, Councillor Teresa O’Neill. Councillor Kelsey had the evidence there. Councillor Kelsey stated that if Councillor Teresa O’Neill was particularly concerned about the same supplementary question that Councillor Kelsey had had and could not answer from her position of Chair of Planning, those questions could have been put at that meeting. The meeting would take place – whether Councillor Teresa O’Neill would be there would be a matter for her. Councillor Kelsey said she was not able to answer those questions directly.

“Can Bexley Council please explain their reasons, in some detail, for withdrawing their support for the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge and now appearing at the Public Inquiry as objectors to the scheme?”

Councillor Francis replied that Bexley Council had not withdrawn its support for the Thames Gateway Bridge. Bexley was, however, appearing as an objector to the Inquiry to impress upon the Inspector to insist that the two conditions which Councillor Kelsey had referred to from the Planning Committee of last November were satisfied before permission was granted. Those conditions were that a full traffic impact assessment be carried out on Bexley’s roads, and measures and funding be agreed to control mitigating increased traffic flows. That decision had been agreed by Members of both political parties following previous decisions made by Bexley Council, most notably in July 2002, again across the Chamber, to support the principle of the Thames Gateway Bridge.

In addition to those two outstanding concerns from the Planning Committee was the Cabinet decision which Councillor Francis had taken at the end of October last year with regard to the tolling issues. The points that were made to the Secretary of State at that time about tolling issues were the Council’s concerns that the maximum toll level to be charged would not be sufficient to discourage the transfer of long-distance journeys from other routes thereby undermining the local regeneration objectives. The formula for calculating the amount of toll only related to changes in the retail price index and not to the use of the bridge by non-local traffic or the impact of traffic using the bridge on the adjoining boroughs. No information was available in connection with the level of discounts for local journeys and the area to which these discounts would apply. The mechanism for renewing the toll was merely time-related and in respect of each calendar year, and not triggered by any other material change in circumstances or needs such as local traffic management and the absence of a clear involvement for all the affected local authorities in the toll charge setting and review procedures. That was the reason why the Council was registered as an objector at the Inquiry because it had those outstanding comments from the Cabinet decision which Councillor Francis has taken last October. It had not been called in so Councillor Francis had presumed the decision had the consent of all Members of the Council. Again the two concerns from the Planning Committee in November had been supported by all Members of the Council and that was the Council’s case that would be made at the Public Inquiry but the principle of the Council supporting the bridge remained because of the improved accessibility and regeneration it would bring to this borough.

Mr S Wise - “I quote an extract from an internal memo released under the Freedom of Information Act from Bexley Council’s Traffic and Transport Department dated 11 August 2004 - ‘It has been noted that the north of the area which bounds the Thames has a number of large and significant developments pending. This would obviously contribute to traffic generation which may adversely impact on the surrounding highway network when coupled with generated and diverted traffic from construction of the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge. This is one of the key concerns raised by Dartford that the construction of the bridge will not compromise the future possibility for development on the southern bank of the Thames Gateway area.’ Given the accepted fact that the bridge would generate traffic and concerns that this would compromise the development of sites in the area and thus economic regeneration, will Bexley add this to their reasons for objection to the scheme?”

Councillor Francis replied that as Councillor Kelsey had already touched on, Members of the Council from both sides would be meeting with officers and Council’s Counsel during the following week to look in detail at the exact points that Bexley would be asking to be made at the Public Inquiry in terms of traffic. Councillor Francis said he would gladly contact Mr and Mrs Wise with a copy of that, and discuss that with Members the following week. Councillor Francis said he needed to remind members of the public and Members of the Council that Bexley Council was not the planning authority in this case. It was Transport for London that needed to demonstrate at the Public Inquiry that the traffic impact stood up to scrutiny. That was why Bexley had called through the Tolling Order for a Public Inquiry initially, now with a wider remit, and as Bexley was not the planning authority, there was a case for Greenwich, Newham and Transport for London to make sure that the traffic impact had been satisfied. Bexley would be asking very strongly, on behalf of residents, at that Public Inquiry for clarification on the two issues from the Planning Committee in November and the Tolling Order so that residents could be satisfied on those points.

“Can Bexley Council please explain why Bexley’s Director of Health, The Bexley Care Trust, Bexley’s Health Partnership Board and Bexley’s Health Scrutiny Committee has not been involved in any consultations with either Greenwich Council or Transport for London with regards to the detrimental health impact on Bexley residents from the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge even though health concerns have been raised by Members of the Council since July 2002?

Councillor Donna Briant replied that she was actually opposed to the bridge, one of the six Labour Councillors on Bexley Council who were opposed to the bridge. Everyone else including everyone on the other side had voted for the bridge. Councillor Briant said Mrs Wise’s question raised the issue of why various bodies had not been consulted. Part of the answer was the fact that Bexley was not the planning authority. Be that as it may, Members from Health Scrutiny and the Health Partnership Board had been having discussions to ensure that those bodies Mrs Wise had mentioned were consulted and were a party to the Public Inquiry and, following the update from the Health Scrutiny Committee on 13 April, Councillor Briant was pleased to confirm that the Care Trust was now working with the South East London Strategic Health Authority to commission an independent review of the evidence presented on the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge. Following the outcome of that independent review, the Care Trust would submit its views to the Inquiry. Councillor Briant understood that the Care Trust was also prepared to meet with local people, such as Mr & Mrs Wise, and other people in Councillor Briant’s Ward and other Wards surrounding the location of the bridge who had concerns over the possible impact of the proposed bridge in time to ensure that the Trust could take full account of such views before finalising its position prior to the deadline of submissions of proof of evidence on 22 May.

Mrs J Wise – “I quote an extract of a letter released under the Freedom of Information Act from Bexley Council to Transport for London dated 29 July 2004. ‘There are particular health issues in Bexley that can be exacerbated by traffic fumes, such as asthma where the levels in children are amongst the highest in the country. Therefore this Authority considers that the four Care Trusts must be consulted and that a comprehensive health impact assessment is an essential part of the planning application.’ Bexley Council say that a comprehensive health impact assessment is essential and yet this has not been done. Can Bexley Council give us their assurances that they will maintain their objections and instruct their Counsel to call for a postponement of the Inquiry until adequate traffic figures are produced, a comprehensive health impact assessment has been produced which is then evaluated by the Care Trusts before a Public Inquiry can take place and if not give reasons?”

Councillor Donna Briant replied that she was very sympathetic to some of the statements that were contained in that letter. Councillor Briant was not sure who had written the letter but it was something that she and other Members had been concerned about for some time. With regard to the postponement, Councillor Briant understood the concerns but Bexley was not the Planning Authority. It had no jurisdiction to ask for a postponement. Bexley could take part in the process and that was what it would be doing. Councillor Briant went on to say that if she had her way, Counsel would look at certain things but she was one of many Councillors and the Councillors had made certain decisions that discussions would take place and Counsel would be advised. Councillor Briant said that for her part she would want to be assured that the health impact assessment that she had been asking for, not for just days/weeks but months and years, did come to fruition. There was an environmental impact assessment apparently and Councillor Briant was waiting to receive a copy. Councillor Briant said people could rest assured that the issues were being discussed.