The Committee to receive statements from those Members who provided prior notice.

The Chair of the Committee welcomed group representatives to make their statements. It was explain that the group opposed to any new crossings in the borough, The Leader of the Council felt that all options were an economical and environmental problem. It was highlighted to the Committee that all routes relied on M25 traffic and that a solution away from the M25 must be considered. It was added that an 8 week consultation period for a £6 billion project was felt to be too short for many due to the lack of materials and statistics and outdated resources. The Leader explained that there was no evidence that traffic growth assumptions had been considered, economic data and job agreements. The Leader felt that a £1.2 million investment per job was not good value for money in context of the 5,000 jobs created for the £6 billion project.

Councillor S Little spoke on behalf of the Conservative Group. During the statement it was highlighted to the Committee that the group was firmly against any new crossing in Thurrock, it was added that the crossing to the east of Thurrock ‘option D’ would have facilitated the additional crossing capacity and would enable an additional route off to Canvey. It was added that a scheme of such tremendous cost and scale must be 100% certain of what it was intended to do. It was highlighted that the effects of the £100million improvements at J30/31 and the £80million widening of the A13 must be considered before proposing the project. It was stated that Highways England proceeding with full knowledge of the air quality issues already present in Thurrock was not good governance.

Councillor Aker spoke on behalf of the UKIP Group it was explained that UKIP opposed the new Thames Crossing and believed it would harm way of life in Thurrock. It was felt that there was no budgeting in the Treasury to fund the crossing and that the only alternative would be to find a foreign investment, meaning almost certain tolling and consequent congestion. Councillor Aker stated that Thurrock had some of the worst air pollution in Europe and that the Lower Thames Crossing would add to this as Thurrock would become the bottleneck of the county losing green belt and homes.  The subject of a local referendum was raised to act as a definitive consultation on the matter. It was firmly believed by UKIP that Thurrock must use the options open to do everything in their power to stop the crossing. It was suggested that at the upcoming elections in May, Thurrock should have another ballot paper asking whether Thurrock support the Government's proposed Thames Crossing or not.

The Chair of the Committee welcomed Cabinet Members to make their statements all Cabinet Members were against the Lower Thames Crossing proposals and the following key points were made:

·         The concerns over air quality issues and the effects on Thurrock residents’ health and wellbeing.

·         The loss of green belt throughout the borough

·         Impact on communities and the segregation of towns and villages.

·         The formation of the proposals on outdated statistics.

·         Concerns were raised how some plans at junctions had been instigated although no crossing had been confirmed.

·         The request for a longer consultation.

The Chair of the Committee invited Councillor S Little to speak as a ward Councillor on behalf of Orsett. Councillor S Little was against any new Crossing in Thurrock. With regards to option D she felt that Highways England, if they were to proceed, should consider building 3 lanes or more rather than dual carriageways because it anticipate further traffic growth. It was highlighted that option D would have delivered the crossing with ease due to the additional open space which would have prevented segregating communities. Councillor S Little urged that the Council and Members of Parliament insist that Highways England, if deciding to continue with option C, immediately set aside funds to pay for Compulsory Purchase Orders. It was also urged that Highways England visit the widening compensation packages along the route. Councillor Little summed up the three proposed routes explaining that all routes would destroy homes, cycle paths, bridleways, footpaths and other community pastimes and rural green belt. It was added that the crossings would have a major impact on the road network during construction and route 2 and 3 would cause flooding of the fens and the Mardyke Valley.