An update will be given at the meeting.

Members received a presentation on Transport for London’s (TfL) proposed new river crossings.

The presentation outlined the various options that had been put forward by TfL as potential new river crossings in East London.

The proposals included:

•      A Silvertown Tunnel

•      Replacing the Woolwich ferry

•      A ferry crossing at Gallions Reach

•      A new road bridge at Gallions Reach.

TfL were now consulting on four further ideas for river crossings at Woolwich, Gallions Reach and/or Belvedere- Rainham.

The river was a barrier between north and south London. People and goods needed to cross it for social and economic purposes and a lack of capacity and cross-river connections was causing congestion and other problems.

At present residents and businesses in East London relied on four cross- river links: Blackwall Tunnel, Woolwich Ferry, Rotherhithe Tunnel and the Lower Thames crossing at Dartford (bridge and tunnel). With a recovering economy and growing population, more people will want to cross the river and the problems currently experienced by people/businesses would only get worse.

Members were advised that the bridge at Belverdere would provide a new road link across the river, connecting to roads in Belvedere and Rainham. In Rainham the bridge would link to the Marsh Way Junction and the A13.It would carry two lanes of traffic in each direction: one for general traffic and one for buses, heavy goods vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. The bridge would be open 24 hours a day under normal conditions and traffic would be charged to use the bridge.New roads would link the bridge to the existing road networkIn Havering. The bridge would join the A13 in the vicinity of CEME at the Marsh Way junction.In Bexley a new access road would join to the A2016 near to Picardy Manorway junction.

Officers advised that the cost of the construction of the bridge would be in the region of £500m-£900m and £0.5m in operation and maintenance per annum. It was also envisaged that the bridge would not be built before 2025-2030.

TfL had advised that journey times across the river would reduce significantly with the bridge carrying approximately 1,500 vehicles per hour in each direction at the busiest times. The bridge would also lead to reduced traffic on other routes in particular A12, the inner A13 and the Dartford Crossing. Increased traffic would be expected on the outer A13 and the A1306.

Members noted that the possible benefits of the crossing included improved access and opportunities for businesses and residents in East London, reduced travelling times to centres of employment and business, regeneration in Havering and North Bexley and the creation of new homes in the London Riverside Opportunity Area.

On the negative side possible concerns for residents in Havering included increased traffic flow on the highway network in peak hours on the A13 east of the new crossing and on the M25, increased traffic volume on the outer A13, A1306 and other strategic roads, and increased traffic on Havering’s local roads as traffic sought “rat-running” alternatives.

Officers advised that the next steps were to invite the comments of the Committee, review technical issues, liaison with other stakeholders before preparing and submitting Havering’s formal response to TfL which would be cleared by the Council in the form of an Executive Decision signed off by the relevant Cabinet member.

During the debate Members sought clarification as to how the proposed crossing would intergrate with the previously discussed Housing Zone. Members agreed that it was important that feedback was given to the GLA when submitting the Housing Zone bid advising of the proposed crossing.

Members commented on possible concerns regarding the impact the crossing would have on residents of the borough particularly those close to the crossing landing site in Rainham. Members also mentioned that previous proposed schemes had seen different landing points for the crossing that did not land in such heavily residential areas and therefore would have less of an impact on residents and businesses.

In conclusion Members were not supportive of the Belverdere/Rainham option and felt that the crossing needed to land in a town location rather than a residential area.