OVER 600 “votes” have been received by Thurrock Council in its campaign to seek people’s views about proposals for a new Thames crossing in the borough.
The majority support the council’s position that a new crossing is not needed.
Thurrock Council’s portfolio holder for transport and regeneration, Cllr Andy Smith, said: “I’d like to thank everyone who has made the effort to vote – whether online or by sending in a voting slip that was in the local papers.”
The online poll – through the council’s website thurrock.gov.uk attracted over 500 votes by the end of Friday last week (19 April). The figures were 71 (13 per cent) for the government’s proposed Option A, close to the current crossing; just 11 (2 per cent) for Option B making landfall at Grays Beach Park; and 109 (19.9 per cent) for Option C, through the Green Belt to the east of Tilbury.
The council’s suggestion of Option D – none of the above – attracted 356 votes (65.1 per cent).
The paper version of the council poll’s results so far (Friday 19 April) have been Option A 2, Option B 23, Option C 3, Option D 66
Cllr Smith said: “I’m always wary of this sort of poll and the results should always be taken with a pinch of salt, but it is interesting to compare our results with the online question asked by one of our local papers – ‘The Government is set to consult on options for a third river crossing over the Thames. Which option do you favour?’.
“Their results showed Option A 14 per cent; Option B 21 per cent; Option C 19 per cent and none of the above at 46 per cent.
“So it seems the largest number of people is saying the government should think again – what we have to do now is to maintain the momentum and increase the profile of the coming national consultation where probably only Options A through C will be available.
“This tallies with Thurrock Council’s own unanimous decision that it does not want a new crossing here – our concern is for the businesses we have here today and the ones that are coming in the next few years.
“We and they need an end to congestion as soon as possible, not years of confusion and blight before work actually starts and another tunnel or bridge appears.
“We need the tolls to be taken away, or at least become free-flow, now and we need a fully developed and fully costed scheme for Junction 30/31 to be created quickly – not a half-hearted scheme in three or four years’ time which will need more work later.
“Whatever happens, what we do not need are more major trunk roads being bulldozed through, whether it’s Purfleet, Aveley and West Thurrock; Grays and Tilbury; or the Green Belt, and next Chadwell and to our historic villages of East and West Tilbury, Orsett and Bulphan.”
And the winner is – apathy and indifference.
A mere 0.3% of the population of Thurrock could be bothered to express an opinion.
I was wondering if CIIr Smith portfolio holder for transport would similarly like to thank the 2000 people in West Thurrock who voted for and against by way of a petition against an illegal lorry Park in Oliver road, Guess what he already has, the way he thanked them was by taking their views and their concerns totally on-board and then deciding to do the exact opposite of their wishes by including a lorry Park in the same road by way of a focused core strategy changes,
I would now ask CIIr Smith openly how and why he came to this decision against 2000 people from basically he’s own ward I would also ask people to comment on your Thurrock because basically we cannot understand how you would go against 2000 people without having any dialogue with the petitioners or including them in any discussions about the procedure and without having which we perceive a more sinister motive
So I invite CIIr Smith to make a clear and concise statement into this devious decision and explain himself to 2000 people, basically why would you commit Political suicide with your voters unless you a very different agenda or mysterious motive.
I am sure CIIr Smith would be quite easily be able to fully explain the position and his reasons and that is why I’m also sending John Kent an e-mail of this blog asking him the same thing and will be hopefully putting his reply on this YOUR THURROCK if there is no reply I will personally submit a question to them both at full Council
I look forward to CIIr Smith’s or the leaders comments
superman – Cllr Andy Smiith was a member of Thurrock Council’s Local Development Framework Working Group on Lorry Parks and he together with another Labour Councillor(I’m sure it was Cllr Gupta) voted that the Titan site go forward as a potential lorry park in Thurrock’s Local Development Framework. Both Cllr Redsell and Cllr Maney who also sat on the working group declared prejudicial interests and left – thus leaving the two Labour Councillors to vote for the site to go forward into the LDF.
Cllr Andy Smith kept very very quiet when the residents in the ward he represents were up in arms about the lorry park. Little did they know that he was one of the councillors who gave legitimacy to the site by putting it forward as a potential lorry park while at the same time rejecting other sites.
The full minutes are available. I did have them somewhere probably on one of my memory sticks. I’m sure Democratic Services will provide you with copies of all minutes of the LDF Working Group on Lorry Parks.
If you believe Maladministration has occurred then gather your evidence and complain to the Local Government Ombudsmen.
This issue has dragged on for years, under three different Council Leaders, numerous Chief Executives, numerous Cabinet Members and numerous Council Officers so good luck but you are probably on a hiding to nothing.
is this the same andy smith who promised to open up devonshire rd to lgv traffic and give the residents of london rd a bit of peace and quiet?,labours been in control for a year now and sod all has happened.
Didn’t even know there was a ballot about this, not much in the way of advertising this was there, yep it may have been in the local papers but they are so dire now that I bet the majority of people don’t even read them, mine just ends up in the recycle bin.