The description of the project boundary in the Secretary of State's Direction letter differs from the indicative project boundary being promoterd by the developer. The developer's indicative project boudary extends further south and includes land around the A2(T) Ebbsfleet Junction, along the A2 (T) to the Junctions either side at Bean and Pepperhill, all of which are in the Green Belt.
Can you confirm that the description in the NSIP Direction Letter has not been changed and that Works to the A2(T) remain the responsibility of the Highways Agency, who we have been in discussion with about alterations to Bean Interchange since Bluewater Regional Shopping Centre opened in 1999.

The Secretary of State?s letter of 9 May 2014 directed that the London Paramount project should be designated as a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) and therefore an application should be made for development consent. The detailed boundary of the proposed London Paramount site was not prescribed by the Direction because its purpose was to prescribe the status of the project as a NSIP and therefore the way in which it would be dealt with (a development consent order rather than planning applications to the local authorities).
It is important to note that the London Paramount project is entirely separate from proposals by the Secretary of State to establish an Urban Development Corporation at Ebbsfleet. The Government?s conclusion on the extent of the development corporation were set out in its response to consultation published in December 2014 attachment 1
With regard to the detailed boundary of the London Paramount site, the applicant (LRHC) is currently undertaking informal pre application consultation with communities and technical consultees. LRHC have indicated to us that they will hold a formal consultation event in advance of submitting their application to the Planning Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. In this context we would not necessarily expect the boundary of the site to be fixed at the pre application stage, beyond showing the general extent and location of the project.
I understand from the meeting we had with LRHC and the Highways Agency that discussions are on-going about the access arrangements to the Paramount site from the A2(T). One of the features of the development consent process is that a developer can make an application for more than one NSIP in a single application. My understanding is that the A2(T) junction works for the Paramount project are currently included in LRHC?s Paramount project. The Highways Agency also has plans for the A2(T) which are separate to the Paramount proposals and would be brought forward in the event that the Paramount project doesn?t proceed.
In terms of the DCO application, one of the required documents will be an Environmental Statement (ES). Our recent scoping opinion published in December 2014 refers to transport and access as a topic to be covered in the ES. Any assessment of traffic impacts will need to consider the cumulative impacts of the development proposed along with other relevant and reasonably foreseeable developments in the area. The detailed design of the junction and access arrangements to the Paramount site must be considered with that context in mind.
Going forward, I would advise you and any concerned residents to take part in the pre-application consultation events being run by LRHC to find out more information about the London Paramount project (including the road proposals), and to put forward views about the project directly to them.