Lake Lothing Third Crossing

Representations received regarding Lake Lothing Third Crossing

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Lake Lothing Third Crossing and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Coal Authority
"I have checked the site location plan against the information held by the Coal Authority and can confirm that the proposed development site is located outside of the defined coalfield. Accordingly, I can confirm that the Coal Authority has no comments or observations to make on this proposal. As this proposal lies outside the defined coalfield area, in accordance with Regulation 3 and Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribe Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, it will not be necessary for any further consultation to be undertaken with the Coal Authority on this Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. This letter can be used by the applicant as evidence for the legal and procedural consultation requirements. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Berry
"My only concern about the whole project, is the impact of making Durban Rd.a cul -de-sac I don't think enough provision has been made for no parking, ie double yellow lines in Durban Rd. Or the bottom section of Kimberley Rd. Wheelie bin services struggle to negotiate this area now. It's a delivery drivers nightmare at times. By the time this project is completed,we should have Civil Enforcement Officers upholding parking restrictions. It may also help if some kind of speeding restriction was brought in "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith White
"Design of Bridge"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek Johnson
"Comments on access and usability by vehicle from Beccles to Lowestoft town. Assessment of impact project will have on journey times at peak/off peak, week day/ week end. Consideration of difference to perception of Lowestoft for access and usage at work and leisure compared to current. Possible value of project to tourism or engineering interest."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Corkett
"I am seeking an understanding of the traffic "tidal flow" and how it will operate each day. It seems to me that the tidal flow at the present bridge is the wrong way around with only one lane into the North of the Town after midday. Will this flow on the new bridge operate the opposite way ? For example two lanes out in the morning at the present bridge. I would like to see the opposite flow on the new structure. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
S M S Group
"As general manager for SMS Group Lowestoft Shipyard. I would like to attend to determine the effect that this will have on our business, to give feedback to SMS parent group head office."
Local Authorities
Great Yarmouth Borough Council
"Thank you for consulting Great Yarmouth Borough Council on the Lake Lothing Third Crossing. Please accept this officer level response on behalf of the Borough Council. I would largely reiterate the comments as submitted in response to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Consultation. These sought to highlight the socio-economic impact of the proposal upon Great Yarmouth; drawing attention to the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) which recognises both Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft as ‘Growth’ locations, particularly well placed to capitalise on the offshore energy sector as the main opportunity for growth. It is considered that the Lake Lothing Third Crossing will better enhance the connectivity between the Enterprise Zone (EZ) sites, particularly where this concerns the location of the two EZ sites south of Lake Lothing (Riverside Road & Lowestoft Industrial Estate). It should be noted that connectivity will be further enhanced between the Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft Enterprise Zone sites through the future implementation of the Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing, which will provide a more direct route between the Great Yarmouth ‘deep water’ Outer Harbour and South Denes Industrial Estate (important areas for the energy sector supply chain) to the A47 and Lowestoft. Overall, the Borough Council supports this proposal and recognises the wider joint benefits that this infrastructure project (along with other projects) will bring to Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. If you would like to discuss these comments further please do not hesitate to contact me using the above contact details. "
Local Authorities
Broads Authority
"The proposal was considered by the Planning Committee on 14 September 2018. Members unanimously commend and support the proposal to construct a third river crossing in Lowestoft which will help address the issues of congestion and delay which impact adversely on the use and development of the town. The scheme would provide significant enhancements to the town, support the leisure industry and commercial sector and be helpful for the area’s future economy. The Authority notes that the height of the proposed bridge would enable the majority of vessels wishing to visit the Broads to pass through without restriction, which is welcomed, whilst the width of the bridge hole would allow the passage of substantial vessels, so there would be no additional impediment to the navigation. The crossing would not have any visual impact on the Broads landscape, would be an important piece of infrastructure locally and would offer benefits for the centre of Lowestoft for future generations. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Environment Agency
"Environment Agency – Summary of relevant representations We consider that in relation to Flood Risk and Flood Modelling; the Sediment Transport Assessment and Water Framework Directive Assessment, the level of assessment presented is insufficient for reliance to be placed on its conclusions, therefore it does not provide an adequate basis for decision making. We request that the Requirements state the Environment Agency has prior approval of the Code of Construction Practice. We confirm that we are currently considering our position in respect of the draft protective provisions and our remit. Detailed explanation of these concerns will follow by email. The Role of the Environment Agency The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee on all applications for development consent orders. We have a responsibility for protecting and improving the environment, as well as contributing to sustainable development. We have three main roles: as an environmental regulator, environmental operator and, environmental advisor. Flood Risk and Flood Modelling We are very concerned that our previous advice has not been adhered to in respect of flood modelling and so we cannot rely on the conclusions drawn in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), The FRA does not address the increase in hazard and risk offsite, which arises from the proposed development. The emergency procedures referenced in this section rely on practices already in place that do not take into account the proposed development. To ensure safety it is necessary for procedures to be drawn up that take account of the situation that will exist if the proposal is constructed. We have also set out the detail required in order to grant a Flood Risk Activity Permit or approve disapplication. Sediment Transport Assessment There is insufficient evidence presented to confirm that the risk to the water environment is low. We are also concerned that the Assessment has not considered impacts during construction and therefore has not provided sufficient evidence to make an informed decision. WFD Assessment We do not agree with some of the assumptions used in the Assessment or that the data supplied in some sections is sufficient. As such we do not yet consider the Assessment to be complete. Protective Provisions The Applicant seeks to disapply various pieces of legislation (Article 3, Part 1 of the draft Development Consent Order). We are currently considering our position in relation to the legislation relevant to the Environment Agency’s remit and the suggested draft protective provisions included in the draft DCO. We will be responding to the Applicant on these issues in due course and will provide the Examining Authority with an update Draft Development Consent Order We are pleased to note that the Requirement relating to the Code of Construction Practice (Schedule 2, Part 1, Article 4) requires that the Environment Agency should be consulted on the CoCP. For the avoidance of doubt we request that the Requirement includes provision for approval by the Environment Agency before approval by the County Planning Authority. We trust that these comments are useful. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr R Cousin
"1. environmental impact on local residents in regard to air pollution during and after construction. 2. parking restrictions and access during build phase for local residents. 3. resident only parking areas during and after build completion. 4. compensation available for potential damage to private dwellings incurred by construction. 5. compensation available for local private residences for disruption and disturbance during the construction phase, especially the proposed 24 hour construction phase for several months. 6. the daily amount of bridge raising proposed by the port authority and its timing. 7. a declaration of any conflict of interest by council members on the project with any commissioned company involved in the project. 8. what programme of assistance/advice is going to be put in place specifically for local residents affected by noise/damage. 9. what measures will be put in place to ensure the bridge does not become a suicide destination.. 10. what funding has been allocated for the maintenance of the bridge and its surroundings after construction and the source of this funding."
Members of the Public/Businesses
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP on behalf of B.S. Pension Fund Trustee Ltd
"The British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) is administered by B.S. Pension Fund Trustee Limited. The day-to-day administration of the Scheme is supervised by the Trustee board, who are directors of the Trustee Company; which is a managing corporate trustee owned by the directors on behalf of the membership. The Scheme is a registered Pension Scheme under Section 153(9) of the Finance Act 2004. B.S. Pension Fund Trustee Limited’s (BSPF) owns the freehold of plot 1-04. Plot 1-04 and the retail site in its immediate vicinity is let to and occupied by Wickes Building Supplies Limited (Wickes) on a lease from BSPF which expires on 23 June 2030. BSPF’s asset is part of a portfolio of UK Property owned by BSPF for the benefit of its subscribers. One of key concerns is to ensure that the value of BSPF’s asset is properly protected in respect of potential impact from the construction and operation of the Lake Lothing Third Crossing. From a review of the application material provided, the project has the potential to adversely affect: • access to the unit let to Wickes by customers on foot and in vehicles; • delivery and other service access to the unit currently let to Wickes by small and large vehicles; and • the amenity enjoyed by its current and potential future tenants as a result of noise, odour, dust and traffic disruption caused during the implementation of the proposed development consent order (DCO). BSPF would object to the inclusion in the DCO of powers for the compulsory acquisition of land or rights that BSPF has an interest in given the current economic importance of protecting pension fund assets in the UK. BSPF is prepared to enter into in to a voluntary agreement with the promoter of the DCO to enable plot 1-04 to be acquired to facilitate the construction and operation of the Lake Lothing Third Crossing subject to the agreement of appropriate terms. BSPF’s costs of engaging with the promoter on this agreement and the CPO process must be comprehensively covered to protect the interests of the subscribers to the pension fund. Such an agreement must also regulate the time at which the land will be acquired to provide certainty for BSPF on the future of this important asset. It will also address the amenity, operational and value issues raised in the bullet points set-out above. BSPF notes it has begun to engage positively with the promoter in relation to agreeing an undertaking for its CPO adviser’s fees and has received heads of terms for a Land and Works Agreement. However the promoter has not progressed these documents in a timely manner, engaged in negotiations with BSPF, or responded to the initial points raised by BSPF on these documents despite several months having elapsed. BSPF notes that promoter is under a duty to take reasonable steps to acquire a property by agreement before doing so by compulsion (para 2 DCLG 2015 Circular). It shall object to the acquisition of its land by compulsion unless the promoter is willing to engage in through, timely and comprehensive negotiations. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Birketts LLP on behalf of Lings Motor Group
"Please see attached representation."
Other Statutory Consultees
Anglian Water Services Ltd
"Thank for you the opportunity to comment on the Lake Lothing Crossing project. Anglian Water is considered to be a statutory consultee for nationally significant infrastructure projects as identified in the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations. The following representations are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water as sewerage undertaker for the above site: Anglian Water is in principle supportive of the above project. Impact on existing assets: There are existing water recycling infrastructure in Anglian Water’s ownership within the boundary of the above project. These assets are critical to enable us to carry out Anglian Water’s duty as sewerage undertaker. We have had discussions with the applicant regarding the need for diversions of Anglian Water’s existing assets. Protective provisions: We have previously requested the inclusion of specific wording for the benefit of Anglian Water as part of the Section 42 consultation conducted in 2017. It is noted that specific protective provisions have been included in the current version of the DCO (Schedule 13, Part 6 of the Draft DCO) as requested. Therefore we are supportive of the wording of the Draft DCO as submitted. Connections to public sewerage networks: Anglian Water is not aware of any requirements made upon them for a foul connection(s) to the public sewerage network for the above project. We understand that a number of surface water connections to the public sewerage network are required for the operational phase of the above project. We have had constructive discussions with the applicant regarding the proposed surface water strategy and are supportive of the strategy in principle subject to confirmation of agreed discharge points being provided. Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Cadent Gas Limited
"Representation by Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) to the Lake Lothing Third Crossing DCO Cadent is a licensed gas transporter under the Gas Act 1986, with a statutory responsibility to operate and maintain the gas distribution networks in North London, Central and North West England. Cadent’s primary duties are to operate, maintain and develop its networks in an economic, efficient and coordinated way. Cadent wishes to make a relevant representation to the Lake Lothing Third Crossing DCO in order to protect its position in light of infrastructure which is within or in close proximity to the proposed DCO boundary. Cadent’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the order limits including should be maintained at all times and access to inspect such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed in relation to impacts on Cadent’s existing apparatus located within this area, and Cadent has identified that it will require adequate protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its apparatus and land interests are adequately protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. Cadent has low, medium and intermediate pressure gas pipelines located within the order limits which are affected by works proposed. As a responsible statutory undertaker, Cadent’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. Cadent is discussing the potential impacts on its network with the promoter however any proposed relocations of apparatus or protections including the extent of any land or rights required by Cadent to facilitate works have not been finalised. Cadent is currently in discussion with the Promoter regarding protective provisions however wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will continue negotiations with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carter Jonas LLP on behalf of Cara Robinson
"Carter Jonas act on behalf of Cara Robinson and we write to register her as an Interested Party in the application for the Lake Lothing Third Crossing (Lowestoft) Development Consent Order (the ‘Application’). Ms Robinson is the owner of the freehold interest in Bellablue Beauty Salon, Waveney Drive, Lowestoft, NR33 0TN (Bellablue), which is identified in the Application for compulsory acquisition (Plot 5-22). Ms Robinson runs her business, Bellablue Nails and Beauty Limited from the Property. Ms Robinson lives with her family in their house immediately neighbouring Bellablue, [redacted] (freehold ownership). Living adjacent to her work place enables Ms Robinson a balance between earning her livelihood on flexible working hours and being present and available to support her family. We had understood that no part of Ms Robinson’s house were included in the application boundary, however on review of the Book of Reference in the Application we note that 6 square meters are identified for compulsory purchase (plot reference 5-33). If the Applicant is granted compulsory purchase powers to acquire Bellablue, Ms Robinson will need to find a suitable replacement for the continuation of her business in the south of Lowestoft close to her existing client base. This in itself will be very challenging, however it is essential that Ms Robinson is also able to continue to work in close proximity to her home. If work and home are separated, it will cause significant disruption to family life. The Scheme therefore represents a significant risk to both Ms Robinson’s livelihood and family life. We are in discussions with the Applicant to support her in finding a solution to enable her to continue her current work / family life arrangements and progress has been made to date. Significant further progress is however needed to confirm a solution which secures Ms Robinson and her family’s future in the face of the risks posed by the Scheme and until such time she therefore objects to the Application. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lowestoft Cruising Club on behalf of Lowestoft Cruising Club
"Agreements 1. Welcomed the setting up by Suffolk County Council (SCC) of the Navigation Working Group (NWG), which Lowestoft Cruising Club (LCC) attended and contributed. The minutes of the NWG meetings (APP-090) form an important discussion of the navigation issues for recreational vessels. We agree with the overall conclusions and expect them to be implemented, and welcome a later meeting for a discussion with contractors regarding risks and mitigation measures during the construction process. 2. We fully support the provision of a waiting pontoon off Nexen (APP-015, 040 & 041, APP-136, APP-198, APP-205, page 20, parag. 5 & 6). 3. While the Vessel Simulation Report (APP-198) only modelled larger commercial vessel movements, the LCC conclude that the navigation risks to recreational vessels when the bridge is operational are only marginally increased. However, the navigation risks are significantly increased during the construction phase, and all recommended mitigation measures should be undertaken, along with those defined in APP-208 Navigation Risk Assessment. See also APP-136, page331. Disagreements 1. There is no clear commitment in the documentation (e.g. APP-136, page 330, parag. 15.5.18-21; Table 16-9) to maintain the existing navigation rights with at a minimum, openings of the new bridge to match the existing 24/7 opening schedule of the A47 bascule bridge, as given in ABP “Lowestoft Small Craft & Yacht Notice”, dated 7 November 2011. While most motor yachts will not require the new bridge to open, many larger yachts will require the new bridge to open and integrate with the A47 bascule bridge openings. The opening schedule for the new bridge should only be decided with the full involvement of the maritime community west of the bridge. 2. The summer closure of the western part of Lake Lothing to vessels for three weeks during the positioning of the bridge is unacceptable. APP-136, page 58, parag. 5.6.20 states [to quote] “For the purposes of the assessment it has been assumed that this possession [of navigation channel] will take place for three consecutive weeks during the summer months when recreational vessel movements in Lake Lothing are likely to be highest”. See APP-136, pages 328/9, parag. 15.5.9, Table 16-9 and page 356; parag. 16.7.1. We disagree with the quote that “the majority of vessels do not navigate to the west of the scheme”. The western end of Lake Lothing has four marinas, additional moorings, and also vessels traverse to and from the Mutford Lock. From the Vessel Survey Report (APP-208) one can deduce that closure of the navigation channel for three weeks in the summer would stop at least 400 vessel movements and create a moderate adverse impact (Table 15-2), not the “slight impact” given in paragraph 15.5.9 or the “minor adverse and not significant” impact quoted in Table 16-9 and page 356, parag. 16.7.1. We cannot agree that (to quote) "During this time[three weeks], no recreational vessel will be able to navigate through Lake Lothing to or from the North Sea but this does not constitute a significant effect due to the duration of the closure.” (APP-205 , page 20, parag. 3). A three week closure in the sailing season would influence a much longer period as vessels cruising before the closure would be unable to return to their moorings, and vessels planning to leave in e.g. school holidays for an extended cruise could well miss their cruising opportunity for the whole season. A three week closure might be acceptable if it takes place between November and March, the quietest part of the sailing season. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP on behalf of Northumbrian Water Limited
"INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT This relevant representation is provided on behalf of Northumbrian Water Limited (“NWL”) who own and operate Northumbrian Water and Essex & Suffolk Water, and form part of the Northumbrian Water Group. NWL is the freehold owner of Trinity House (and the associated land) (registered under Title number SK347381) located at the southern end of Riverside Business Park. Part of the NWL land falls within the proposed Order Limits under plots 3-43, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 4-08, 5-01, 5-02, 5-03, 5-04 and 5-32 and would be subject to compulsory acquisition powers in the DCO. NWL has been in regular discussion with Suffolk County Council (“SCC”) regarding the proposed third bridge crossing (the “Scheme”). Although NWL has consistently made clear that it does not in principle object to the Scheme, NWL has some concerns regarding the specific content of the DCO application documents, and in the way in which the Scheme would impact on NWL’s land interests and its critical operational activities at Trinity House, both during construction and in the operation of the new bridge and surrounding public highway network. NWL operations at Trinity House Trinity House is a strategic operational site comprising a purpose-built customer service centre (for both the Northumbrian and Essex & Suffolk operating regions of NWL). Opened in 2013, Trinity House operates from 7.30am until 8.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am until 5.00pm on Saturdays. It employs over 240 people (with capacity for 263), comprising a mixture of full and part time as well as temporary personnel. The need for shift working and continuous operation of services, as well as a policy that encourages and supports flexi-time workers, requires access to significant car parking, and NWL has two car parks with 106 spaces. Even with such provision, NWL staff also utilize on street parking. NWL is a statutory undertaker regulated by Ofwat and supplies potable water and associated sewerage and waste water treatment services to 2.7m people in the north east. In the south NWL (through Essex & Suffolk Water) supplies potable water services to over 1.8m people. While NWL operates a virtual billing contact centre through two offices (Trinity House and Northumbria House in Durham), all letter, email and web contact is dealt with in Trinity House. In addition, over two thirds of the debt collection services operate from Trinity House. Ofwat operates a Service Incentive Mechanism (SIM) which measures customer satisfaction levels in relation to regulated water and sewerage companies. SIM is a financial incentive that affects the prices NWL is allowed to charge. Companies that perform better for their customers will be rewarded with higher price limits. Conversely, those that perform less well will have a penalty imposed. This is achieved through an adjustment to the price limit for each company after all other financial modeling has taken place. Penalties can reach £30m for poor SIM performance and therefore this is a key area of focus for NWL’s business in terms of delivering unrivaled customer service and not creating any risk of penalty under the SIM model. In the year 2016/17 NWL achieved joint first place in industry, and in 2017/18 was ranked third for water and sewerage companies. Key to maintaining a high level of service is avoiding any unnecessary disruption to services that would otherwise result in increased customer wait time. Such disruption or interruption of services from Trinity House would result in reputational damage to the business, a lower SIM score, and in certain cases exposure to financial penalties. Trinity House Planning Permission Trinity House was constructed pursuant to planning permission granted in February 2013 (ref: DC/12/1391/FUL). This permission includes an ongoing planning condition which requires NWL to maintain ecology mitigation measures in association with an approved Habitat Mitigation Plan, and approved landscaping plans (“Habitat Condition”). The habitats mitigation area is located on the north-east part of NWL’s land to the east of the secondary car park, and includes land within the Order Limits which is subject to temporary possession and permanent acquisition of land and rights over land. SUMMARY OF KEY CONCERNS TEMPORARY POSSESSION AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF NWL LAND INTERESTS • Effect on NWL’s ability to continue to comply with the Habitat Condition – NWL disagrees with the assertion made by SCC that the effects of the Scheme on NWL’s land interests would be only slightly adverse during construction and negligible during operation as they result in the permanent loss of an area of required habitat which would prejudice NWL’s ability to comply with the Habitats Condition. The inclusion of article 3(3) does not address this as the disapplication provisions in section 120(5) of the Planning Act 2008 relate only to modification of a statutory provision (so would not extend to planning conditions issued pursuant to a planning permission) and in any event are limited to land falling within the Order Limits. • Approach to temporary possession – lack of detail provided on any measures to be taken to relocate existing habitat in the affected area, or on the effects of existing ecology on the site (other than the weevil wasp). • Reinstatement of landscaping and the effects of future access rights – lack of detail regarding how this will be controlled so that the appropriate habitat is reinstated and how that will be protected when SCC exercise their access rights over the land for maintenance of the Scheme. • Provision for replacement habitat – there does not appear to be any reference in the DCO application for provision of replacement habitat land in relation to the area of NWL land which will be permanently acquired for the purposes of the Scheme, nor any reference confirming a net gain in bio diversity as would be expected for such a project. CONSTRUCTION PHASING • Maintaining access to Trinity House and Canning Road – although the proposed construction phases (as set out in Section 5 of the Environmental Statement) indicate that construction of the Waveney Drive junction and new access road to allow access to the Riverside Business Park will be the first phase, there is a lack of clarity as to how this will be secured, and that access to Riverside Business Park (and Trinity House) will be maintained at all times. In relation to the eastern end of Canning Road, the DCO (in Schedule 4) does not expressly acknowledge that this junction will cease to operate, nor the timing for when this would occur. • Maintaining constant connectivity of services to Trinity House – a lack of detail regarding the measures to be taken, and how these will be secured through the DCO to ensure that all services to Trinity House are maintained (and what measures would be taken to secure emergency connectivity should that prove necessary). DRAFT DCO PROVISIONS • Article 3 (disapplication of legislation) – concerns over the efficacy and purpose of article 3(3) which purports to disapply the effects of planning conditions (see above). • Article 6 (protective works to buildings) – specific concerns of the inclusion of powers lasting 5 years after the date the Scheme comes into use, and which extend to buildings beyond the Order Limits, and include rights to enter buildings to carry out surveys and monitoring (including leaving behind apparatus) and where reasonably required (art 16(4)) effectively secure exclusive temporary possession of the land and buildings for the purposes of carrying out protective works. • Schedule 2 Requirements – further to concerns on the nature of specific requirements (and potential need for additional requirements including controls on sequencing and phasing), NWL does not consider the inclusion of a deemed discharge provision in relation to applications to discharge requirements to be appropriate, particularly where these decisions impact on third party interests. • Schedule 4 (permanent stopping up of highways) – the lack of express reference to cessation of traffic access between Canning Road and Riverside Road and any necessary sequencing provisions (see above). INTERIM CODE OF CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE (“CoCP”) • Insufficient detail to ensure that the final form CoCP will mitigate the effects of the construction activities on NWL’s operations at Trinity House and the measures to be taken to ensure no disruption to connectivity of services to the building, or those aimed at minimizing the effects of noise and vibration. • Concerns over proposed core working hours and the criteria and management of proposed periods of extended hours. • Lack of detail regarding maintaining access to Riverside Business Park and connectivity to services (see above). • Further details required in relation to the approach to reinstating habitat on the NWL land being used for construction purposes (see also above). HIGHWAY DESIGN • New Access Road / New Canning Road Priority Junction – the proposed layout requires further review in the interests of highway safety. There is no proposed right turn lane facility into Canning Road (the vast majority of vehicles will turn right). The junction visibility splays should be shown, particularly to the right to vehicles exiting from the direction of Nexen, in order to demonstrate that the appropriate level of visibility can be achieved. • New Access Road 90 degree bend – in the interests of highway safety, the forward visibility should be shown on the General Arrangement Plan, and land set aside to accommodate the visibility envelope. We note that the Landscaping Plans (Sheet 2 of 2) shows proposed trees immediately either side of the new access road which could impede forward visibility. Further details should be given as to how the proposed land take for the Order Limits will be disposed of so as to maintain the required forward visibility around the bend within the future highway boundary. • Canning Road junction with Riverside Road – Canning Road to Riverside Road is to be stopped up, but no turning head has been provided at the end. Furthermore, existing pedestrian/cycle accessibility to Canning Road is to be severed to Riverside Road. It is not clear how this accessibility will be maintained for existing staff at the Riverside Business Park. • Pedestrian crossings – there are proposed new crossings on Waveney Drive and Riverside Road on the entry/exits to the new southern roundabout. Given the forecast doubling of traffic on Waveney Drive as a result of the Scheme, and the Environmental Statement conclusion that Waveney Drive will have a substantial disbenefit with significant adverse effects on fear and intimidation and severance for pedestrians, these proposed new crossings should be controlled crossings for both pedestrians and cyclists in order to maintain/enhance accessibility by non-motorised users to the Riverside Business Park. CAR PARKING • Reduction in on street car parking – despite the application documents stating that demand for car parking at Riverside Business Park is greater than supply (causing daily overspill use of on street parking on Riverside Road and Canning Road) the proposals include further parking restrictions on Canning Road and Riverside Road which result in a net loss of on street parking of around 48 vehicles. We do not consider the assertion that the proposals will encourage a reduction in parking need through improved connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists to be justified and have concerns that the Transport Assessment states that any displacement of on street parking would occur in the neighbouring residential streets (which we would consider inappropriate and insufficient). • Consultation on parking requirements – although local residents were consulted on the proposed on street parking regulations on Durban Road, Kimberley Road, Notley Road and Kirkley Run, there does not appear to be any reference of consultation with local businesses in Riverside Business Park in terms of the proposed on street parking restrictions on Canning Road and Riverside Road. • Canning Road restrictions - it is not clear from the application documents why it is proposed to restrict all existing on street parking on Canning Road, since this on street parking should not affect the operation of the Scheme. NWL would argue this should remain as existing. • Lack of parking on new access road – there is no justification as to why on street parking could not be provided on the new access road, which would mitigate the loss of on street parking proposed elsewhere. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT – DURING CONSTRUCTION • HGV impact – the ES forecasts 108 two-way HGVs per day to the southern compound, which enter via Waveney Drive, but then states that this “does not require detailed assessment as it will not constitute a change in traffic of greater than 30% on any link within the study area”, however the number of HGVs will increase by more than 30% on Waveney Drive, as a result (>85%). Reassessment should be undertaken to determine if there are likely to be any significant effects arising, and associated mitigation measures to be adopted during the peak construction phase. • HGV trip distribution and assignment – there appears to be no mention of this in the application documents, and we consider the likely trip assignment of HGVs on Waveney Drive should be reviewed and assessed to fully understand the likely impacts (and associated mitigation, if required). • Abnormal HGV loads – there is no mention of this in the application pack. Abnormal loads should be considered, and how they will be managed so as to not interfere with local business operations. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT - OPERATIONS • Waveney Drive increase in traffic– the technical assessment work concludes that there will be a doubling of traffic on Waveney Drive due to the Scheme, and as a result, will experience a substantial disbenefit with significant adverse effects on fear and intimidation and severance for pedestrians. No mitigation has been recommended as a result of the conclusion. Further mitigation measures to address this significant adverse effect to pedestrians should be considered. • Waveney Drive link capacity - although junction capacity assessments have been undertaken in relation to junctions on Waveney Drive, no assessment has been made regarding the link capacity of Waveney Drive and Victoria Road to determine whether the existing road corridor can accommodate this forecast increase in traffic as a result of the Scheme. A link capacity assessment should be undertaken. • New Access Road / Waveney Drive Priority Ghost Island Junction – the junction capacity assessments for the future year of 2037 only appear to include existing Riverside Business Park traffic level quantums. The assessment does not include likely future forecast traffic flows on the New Access Road associated with the Kirkley Waterfront and Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood (Policy WLP2.4 of the Waveney Local Plan Final Draft Plan March 2018), and future additional development at the existing Riverside Business Park. As a result, the proposed priority ghost island junction may not be appropriate to accommodate the future demand in this area (i.e. not future-proofed for the allocation). It is recommended that the future capacity and proposed junction form/layout should be reconsidered, and should be capable of accommodating the expected and future traffic flow without excessive delay to traffic on the New Access Road (this is also raised in the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit report Problem 1 and Designers’ Response). This should be considered from the outset since it could affect the proposed road alignment of the New Access Road and the form of the junction which will be fixed as part of the DCO. • Rail level crossing on B1531 Victoria Road – there is minimal information detailed on the likely forecast impact on the existing rail level crossing as a result of the Scheme, particularly since there is forecast to be almost a doubling of traffic on Victoria Way and Waveney Drive. It is not clear what level of consultation has taken place with Network Rail and the local highway authority in terms of considering the safety implications of this forecast impact, since level crossings are considered by the Rail industry as a key safety concern in some instances, and Network Rail’s policy position on level crossings is broadly to close, bridge over or tunnel under level crossings to address this safety concern. NOISE AND VIBRATION EFFECTS ARISING FROM THE SCHEME There is a need for further clarification on a number of areas within the Environmental Statement relating to noise and vibration, including: • what mitigation measures have been recommended to protect Trinity House and how these will be secured (particularly given the lack of detail in the Interim Code of Construction Practice); • assumptions made in relation to operational road traffic noise (for flows < 1000 veh/18-hour); • location and distances in relation to closest construction works to Trinity House; and • reasons for variations in assessment data (such as duration of short term measurements, lack of consistent data collection at all points)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP (Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP) on behalf of Statuslist Limited
"We act on behalf of Statuslist Limited (“Statuslist”) in relation to The Lake Lothing Third Crossing Development Consent Order (“the DCO”) which is being promoted by Suffolk County Council (“the Council”) as part of the Council’s scheme involving the construction, operation and maintenance of a new bascule bridge highway crossing linking the areas north and south of Lake Lothing in Lowestoft, hereafter referred to as the Lake Lothing Third Crossing (“the Scheme”). On 15 August 2018, Statuslist were served notice by the Secretary of State under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008 (the “2008 Act”) confirming that the Council’s application for the DCO submitted in June 2018 has been accepted. We have set out below in summary Statuslist’s formal representations in response to the DCO. Statuslist is the registered proprietor of freehold land located on the North Side of Waveney Down, Lowestoft under Title Number SK96107 (“the Land”). The Land is currently subject to a leasehold interest under Title Number SK97321, the registered proprietor of which is Rentokil Initial (1896) Limited. The Land is currently vacant but was formally used for industrial and warehousing purposes and is intended to be subject to future comprehensive commercial and residential development. Part 1 of the Book of Reference to the DCO refers to Statuslist’s interest in the Land under Plots 3-16, 3-40, 3-41, 3-59, 4-01, 4-02, 4-03, 4-04 and 4-05, as shown on the Plans that accompany the DCO. Part 1 of the Book of Reference to the DCO confirms that the Council propose to permanently acquire a proportion of the Land comprised in plots 4-02 and 3-40 for the provision of a new access road (the “New Access Road”), together with permanent creation and acquisition of new ancillary rights of access across Plots 3-41 and 4-05 (the “Rights”). In addition, the Council proposes to temporarily acquire part of the Land comprised in Plots 3-16, 3-59, 4-0 and 4-04 for use during the construction of the New Access Road. At the outset of these representations, we wish to make clear that Statuslist does not object to the principle of the Scheme and considers that the provision of the Third Crossing is likely to bring economic and social benefits to Lowestoft and the wider region. However, Statuslist is very concerned about the impact of the New Access Road, and associated permanent and temporary acquisition of the relevant parts of the Land and Rights, will have on Statuslist’s own use and future development plans for the Land. Statuslist therefore makes these representations in respect of the DCO. 1. Location and design of the New Access Road Statuslist is concerned that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the use of the Land is in fact required for the New Access Road. There is no evidence that the Council has considered alternative options that would not impact on the Land or, if such options have been considered, the reasons why they have been rejected. The position of the New Access Road as shown in the Design Report (page 107) of the documents accompanying the DCO is not considered optimal. The New Access Road will bisect the Land and will impact on the current and future use of the Land by Statuslist. In particular, Statuslist is concerned that the position of the proposed New Access Road will materially reduce the density of development capable of being achieved on the Land on a permanent basis. The industrial and commercial use of land located to the west of the Land requires access for a car transporter (amongst other things). However, this will have a negative effect on the Land, as it significantly increases the road geometry requirements, over and above what would normally be required for emergency or servicing vehicles. This is not only “land hungry”, requiring a greater area of land to be acquired from Statuslist by the Council, diminishing the level of development quantum capable of being achieved on the Land, but also impacts on the character of the road design and the types of frontage development likely to be achieved. Both of these factors are detrimental to the future use and development of the Land. Statuslist has submitted previous design and location options for the New Access Road to the Council for consideration, which it considers would be optimal, balancing the provision of suitable access for the purposes of the Scheme whilst minimising the negative impact on the use of the Land. Unfortunately, the alternative design proposals submitted have not been accepted by the Council. As a result, Statuslist continues to have serious concerns as to the permanent impact of the New Access Road on the use of the Land. It is considered that the route proposed for the New Access Road by the Council will inhibit the future use of the Land and will negatively impact on the design and density of development capable of being undertaken on the Land. The end result is that the location and design of the New Access Road is not optimum and should be reconsidered as part of the DCO process, with the alternative routes proposed by Statuslist evaluated and adopted by the Council as part of the Scheme. 2. Traffic impact on the use of the Land arising from the New Access Road Statuslist is concerned that the New Access Road is likely to give rise to an increase in traffic flows on the route to the Third Crossing, including HGV and other commercial traffic, both as part of the construction works and accessing the neighbouring commercial development. It appears that the design of the New Access Road will comprise an ‘Avenue’ design with single carriageway street, deciduous tree planting and wide pavements of approximately 4 metres either side of the road, including a segregated cycle lane. The maximum speed limit will be limited to 30 mph. It is noted that the Draft Design Guidance Manual enclosed with the DCO provides that “The new Access Road must provide an adaptable design to accommodate adjacent development in the future. Future development in this area could comprise commercial/residential, requiring careful consideration as the most appropriate solution for these land uses.” Statuslist is concerned that that the New Access Road will bring increased through traffic, most significantly HGVs and other commercial traffic, through the Land, which will limit the options for the use and development of those areas of the Land fronting onto the New Access Road. In this respect, the requirements of the above Guidance will not be satisfied and a negative impact on the use of the Land will inevitably result. This gives rise to serious concerns regarding the potential negative impact the New Access Road will have on the future use of the Land and, in particular, proposed future residential and commercial development. 3. Temporary acquisition of Plots 3-16, 3-59, 4-0 and 4-04 for the New Access Road It is understood that the above plots are proposed to be temporarily acquired by the Council for the purposes of use during the construction of the New Access Road and wider Scheme. The temporary use will include the erection of a construction compound within Plot 3-16. Statuslist is seriously concerned that the temporary acquisition of the relevant plots will have a detrimental impact on the use of those parts of the Land as part of its own use and development of the Land. In particular, it is anticipated that the temporary acquisition would negatively impact on the phasing of and timescales for carrying out such development and could in a worst case scenario preventdevelopment altogether. It is imperative that the temporary use of the relevant parts of the Land is only consented where any adverse impact on the use and development of the Land are avoided, or minimised to the greatest extent possible. 4. Disruption during construction of the Scheme In addition to the adverse impacts following completion of the Scheme, it is important to note the significant problems that will arising during the construction of the Scheme. During the construction of the New Access Road and wider Scheme, it is likely that there will be widespread disruption on and in the vicinity of the Land. The timescales are also likely to coincide with Statuslist’s own timeframe for the development of the Land. There is every potential that the undertaking of the works, and associated temporary possession of the relevant plots during that period, will restrict and negatively impact on Statuslist’s use of the Land. It is clearly essential that the timescale for the Scheme and methods of working employed do not interfere with or prevent the use and development of the Land. 5. Impact on utilities and infrastructure The design and construction of the New Access Road will impact on the utilities and other infrastructure currently serving the Land and those required as part of any development proposals brought forward in the future. It is not clear the extent to which the impact on such services has been factored into the design and phasing of works for the New Access Road if at all. Statuslist is concerned that failure in this regard will negatively impact on the use of the Land and may restrain or prohibit development of the Land in the future. Conclusion In conclusion, it is clear that the DCO and the Scheme gives rise to a range of legitimate concerns that are required to be addressed as part of the examination and approval process. Statuslist has raised such concerns during the consultation stage and has previously put forward alternative proposals for the location and design of the New Access Road that would mitigate the impact on the Land. Statuslist is concerned that such concerns have not been addressed by the Council and that the alternative design proposals submitted have not been properly considered. In particular, there are serious concerns regarding the location, design, capacity of the New Access Road and the potential detrimental impact on the use and future development of the Land.In addition, the temporary possession of the relevant plots (Plots 3-16, 3-59, 4-0 and 4-04) is also of concern. In light of this, Statuslist consider that the requirement for the Council to demonstrate that there is a compelling case in the public interest which justifies the acquisition of the relevant plots forming part of the Land sought to be acquired is not satisfied. "
Other Statutory Consultees
The Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond
"Trinity House is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar with powers principally derived from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended). The statutory role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority includes the superintendence and management of lighthouses, buoys and beacons within our area of jurisdiction. Trinity House wishes to be a registered interested party due to the potential impact the project may have on navigation within Trinity Houses area of jurisdiction. Please direct correspondence regarding this application to the following email addresses: [email protected] and [email protected]"
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Waveney District Council and Suffolk County Council
"This is a joint representation on behalf of Waveney District Council and Suffolk County Council as statutory consultees and host authorities. 2. The proposed third crossing is very much supported and welcomed. However, drawing on the consultee responses there are some matters that require further resolution/inclusion within the Development Consent Order (DCO) application as follows: 1) Highways a) Several minor traffic modelling issues have been identified that need to be addressed prior to granting the DCO. While these issues are not considered to significantly affect overall impact of the scheme they may influence capacity or delays at individual roads and junctions. Officers will work with the applicant to resolve these prior to and during the examination. b) Further detailed resolution is required on road safety issues at a small number of junctions. These are capable of resolution during the course of the Examination. c) Attention is drawn to the inflexibility of the DCO process to allow changes to agreed plans after consent is issued. This would make later alterations to such items as parking restrictions difficult although it is accepted that the applicant has undertaken consultation with stakeholders and that revisions can be made during the examination which reduces this risk. Officers will work with the applicant to ensure details are as accurate as possible before the conclusion of the Examination. d) The impact of construction traffic will require further consideration as additional information becomes available and this will need to be dealt with within the final version of the Code of Construction Practise. 2) Archaeology a. the Environmental Statement should have made clear that further archaeological work will be required; b. the DCO should make clear that an archaeological strategy should be in place before works commence; c. the Code of Construction Practice should mention archaeology; 3) Ecology a) greater clarity on the role of ecology should be included in the DCO or its supporting documents and enhancements should be planned, agreed and implemented; 4) Landscape a) with regard to the northern approach to the bridge, a public realm strategy there is not likely to be appropriate, However, there should be the inclusion of a sustainable drainage, biodiversity and visual amenity driven scheme along the lines of that associated with Tom Crisp Way for the northern landing of the bridge; 5) Air Quality a) It is not clear (and how) congestion and queuing at junctions has been accounted for within the modelling. There is a risk therefore that concentrations and impacts will be under-predicted at receptors closest to junctions and the assessment would benefit from greater analysis of those receptors where the highest concentrations and greatest impacts are predicted. b) Further consideration should be given to the full list of mitigation measures described by the IAQM relating to High risk construction sites and these measures should be included in the final Code of Construction Practise or the Air Quality Management Plan to be adopted for the scheme. 6) Design a) The local authorities should continue working with the applicant and contractor on the Design Guidance Manual to achieve a high quality design for the scheme. 7) Floods and Water a) Further consideration should be given to the treatment of surface water prior to discharge into Lake Lothing. b) Non-return valves are specified on the outfalls. Consideration should be given to the storage required when the system is fluvially or tidally locked as well as the implications of operations of the proposed new tidal barrier. 8) Contaminated Land a) The local authorities will need to continue to work with the applicant in the development of the Code of Construction Practise in respect of the development of procedures for any issues arising on contaminated land. 9) If planning permission is granted, a full review of eligibility for further sound insulation under the NIR must be must be completed to protect the future amenity of the most affected residential receptors. In addition, it should be made clear on the face of the DCO that, where appropriate, the discharge of requirements should only take place after consultation with Waveney District Council. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP (Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP) on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"We are instructed by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (“Network Rail”) in relation to the proposed Lake Lothing (Lowestoft) Third Crossing Order. This Section 56 Representation is made on behalf of Network Rail. Network Rail owns and operates Great Britain’s railway network and has statutory and regulatory obligations in respect of it. Network Rail is a statutory undertaker in respect of its railway undertaking. Network Rail is also an affected land owner, named in the Book of Reference. Network Rail objects to any proposed compulsory acquisition of its land or any rights in, over or under its land under both Section 127 and 138 of the Planning Act 2008. There are protective provisions for the benefit of Network Rail which are well precedented in both TWA Orders and DCOs. Examples of those protective provisions in respect of highway schemes can be found in recent A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme Development Consent Order 2016 and the M4 Motorway (Junctions 3 to 12) (Smart Motorway) Development Consent Order 2016. Suffolk County Council has submitted a draft DCO which does not contain protective provisions in favour of Network Rail in the same format and to the same effect as contained in those previous orders. Accordingly, at present Network Rail objects to the proposed draft DCO on the basis that it does not include Network Rail’s standard protective provisions. Network Rail will press, both in written representations and where necessary in submissions at hearings, the absolute need for its protective provisions to be included in a DCO where Network Rail’s operational infrastructure is affected by the proposal. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Clyde & Co LLP on behalf of Associated British Ports
"Associated British Ports (ABP) is the owner and operator of the Port of Lowestoft and as such, the Statutory Port Undertaker. It is also Statutory Harbour Authority and the Competent Harbour Authority. For the assistance of the ExA, ABP’s position is that whilst it does not object to the principle of a third crossing over Lake Lothing, it does object to the proposed location of the new bridge, which if approved by the Secretary of State, will act to the serious detriment of ABP in terms of both existing and future port operations. ABP's relevant representations, therefore, are in summary, as follows: 1. DCO Submission 1.1 The ExA will have seen ABP's correspondence with PINS concerning the validation of the LLTC application. ABP remains of the view that the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of the PA 2008 in terms of meaningful consultation and negotiation. This has led to the submission of an ES that is inadequate, misleading and legally deficient in terms of the requirements of the EIA Regulations. 2. Environmental Statement 2.1 In ABP’s view, the PEIR published by the applicant was incomplete and deficient, failing properly to describe the LLTC scheme and assess its impact on the Port. 2.2 Despite advice given by PINS in their Scoping Opinion, issues that should have been assessed in the PEIR were not assessed – and the fundamental deficiencies apparent in the PEIR have been perpetuated in the ES. The applicant has: - (a) Failed to assess “the direct and indirect significant effects of the proposed development”; (b) Failed to provide an adequate and meaningful baseline scenario in relation to the Port; (c) Failed to include an outline of the likely evolution of the Port in a no development scenario; (d) Failed to undertake an adequate assessment of alternatives; (e) Ignored the future development of the Port, despite the very clear aspirations of ABP, the Local Planning Authority (Waveney District Council), the applicant (Suffolk County Council) itself and indeed, the SoS in his section 35 Direction where he recognises "the Port of Lowestoft's role in being the hub for the off-shore wind farms that are part of the East Anglia Array, a major energy supplier for the UK"; (f) Failed to explain and justify its assessment methodology; (g) Failed to explain how the scheme will be operated which of itself, raises the question as to what actually has been assessed; and (h) Failed to provide a properly and correctly formulated Navigation Risk Assessment. 2.3 In view of the short timescale afforded by the applicant, ABP is still reviewing the ES and will expand on the above points and others arising at the appropriate time. 3. Development Consent Order 3.1 As promoted, the DCO is both legally deficient and unacceptable in port operational terms. The applicant has failed to take into account: - (a) The seriously detrimental impact that its scheme will have on ABP's day to day operations; (b) The ability of ABP to operate, manage and regulate the Port in terms of its bye-laws; (c) ABP's future operations; and (d) ABP's need to comply with its statutory duties and obligations, including those as SHA, the ISPS Code and ABP's statutory obligation to ensure the safety of navigation and protection of people, vessels and the environment. 3.2 ABP will require a comprehensive indemnity against the risks and hazards that the applicant, by constructing the LLTC, will introduce to the Port. The current indemnity is inadequate. 4. Compulsory Acquisition 4.1 The compulsory acquisition of land and rights within ABP’s statutory port estate will act to the serious detriment of the port undertaking, leading directly to: (a) The loss of existing berth space within the Port's Inner Harbour; (b) A detrimental impact on existing Port operations to the east of the LLTC; (c) The loss of port utility to the west of the proposed LLTC; (d) The need for an emergency berth to the east of the LLTC within the Inner Harbour; (e) The bisection of the Inner Harbour, damaging ABP's ability to secure further business from the offshore wind sector; and (f) The consequent prospect of the deflection of future business from the Port – not just offshore wind, but including aggregates, agri-bulks, general cargos, offshore oil and gas – to competitor ports. 5. Mitigation 5.1 ABP has convened workshop meetings with the applicant at which it has raised the question, amongst others, of mitigation. If the applicant wishes to mitigate the serious detriment that its scheme will cause, as it is the applicant who is proposing to introduce a hazard, namely the LLTC, into the Port – it is for the applicant to promote the necessary mitigation which must encompass a series of measures, including the loss to compulsory acquisition of operational berth space and the provision of an emergency berth, without which the Port may be faced with in perpetuity with safety issues which go to ABP's long-term ability to operate the Inner Harbour. 6. Serious Detriment 6.1 The LLTC Scheme as currently promoted will, without adequate and satisfactory mitigation, act to the “serious detriment” of ABP as statutory port undertaker. The SoS will not be in a position, unless the scheme is suitably modified and mitigated, to authorise the compulsory acquisition of the land required for the scheme. 7. The Secretary of State 7.1 A formal representation will be submitted to the SoS to this effect under section 127 of the PA 2008. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Broadland Housing Group
"Please accept this representation in relation to the Lake Lothing 3rd crossing. The representation reflects 6 tenanted properties in close proximity to the bridge for which Broadland Housing Group is the Landlord and Freeholder. In principal we welcome the proposal for the 3rd bridge crossing which we hope would benefit the overall traffic management and logistics within this area. We do however express concern over the impact the construction of the bridge will have on our tenants and local community, and the expectations of traffic volume once the bridge is completed? For example; will the new Lake Lothing Crossing attract more traffic causing further congestion within the area ? It would be beneficial to understand how this will be managed, particularly at times when the bridge is closed for the passing of vessels? We would also welcome the opportunity for a specific resident community group to be implemented to engage with the process and provide a forum to voice any concerns or provide useful input into the project to ensure their views are taken into consideration. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Axis Property Consultancy LLP on behalf of Brookhouse (Lowestoft) Nominees VI Limited (Brookhouse (Lowestoft) Nominees VI Limited)
"We act on behalf of Brookhouse (Lowestoft) Nominees VI Limited (the Owner) who own the North Quay Retail Park (the Property) which is a substantial development comprising 15 retail units totalling 17,373 sq m (187,000 sq ft) occupied by tenants such as Next, Halfords, Morrisons, Pets at Home, Poundland, Iceland, Costa Coffee, TK Maxx, Argos, Home Bargains and Barnados. The area of land proposed to be acquired for the Lake Lothing Crossing (the Scheme) forms part of the main road frontage and sole customer vehicular access into the retail park and the loss of this land will therefore directly affect all of the aforementioned occupiers on the park. At present Suffolk County Council (the Council) has not adequately justified the requirement to take this land nor has it provided sufficient information to the Owner for it to assess the potential impact the acquisition of this land will have on its retained property. The Owner is a well-established property developer and investor specialising in the out of town retail sector and it is extremely concerned that the scheme as currently proposed will impact the current access into the Property and adversely affect the businesses on the retail park in particular during the construction period. The Owner has confirmed in writing its willingness to engage with the Council but despite several attempts to progress these discussions, both with the Council and its appointed property consultants Ardent Management, it has not received any detailed response to its letters and emails dated 24 July 2018, 16th August 2018 and 13th September 2018. In accordance with the ‘Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process’ published by DCLG, the Council has not provided sufficient information to enable the Owner to assess the impact on its retained land nor has it made any meaningful attempt to acquire the property by agreement in advance of the CPO being obtained. Unless and until such engagement has taken place to the Owner’s reasonable satisfaction this objection will be maintained. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Historic England
"On 1st April 2015 Historic England was vested (retaining the formal title of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) and is the government service championing England’s heritage and giving expert, constructive advice. There is potential for this development to impact upon the historic environment, and that without mitigation this impact has the potential to be significant in relation to some receptors. We are aware that the application includes a comprehensive Environmental Statement and that amendments have been made to the ES since our letter of advice in relation to the PEIR consultation and helpful discussion of our comments is set out in the ES. We have previously raised concerns about the direct impact of the development upon non-designated heritage assets within the area of the development footprint, including palaeoenvironmental deposits dating to the Holocene and possible earlier. We are pleased to see the application includes the Cultural Heritage DBA (ES Vol 3 Appendix 9A) and Deposit Model (ES Vol 3 Appendix 9B) on which we have previously commented. The application includes a WSI for future mitigation (ES Vol 3 Appendix 9F) which sets out how the proposed project might mitigate against impact to the historic environment. We will therefore require the draft DCO to include provision for delivery of the project specific WSI (should consent be granted). The WSI must enable the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures which are necessary to reduce the impact of the development upon the historic environment, and develop appropriate methodologies for further investigation within the project area. This will inform the delivery of the project in a timely way, by taking these matters into consideration prior to the commencement of construction activities. Therefore, the WSI must be produced and agreed prior to the project commencing, and before any further pre-construction surveys take place. We have also previously raised concerns in relation to the impact of the development upon on the South Lowestoft and Oulton Broad Conservation Areas and on the significance of a number of designated heritages through development within their setting. In particular the Royal Norfolk and Suffolk Yatch Club which is listed at Grade II* and a group of Grade II listed buildings such as Port House. We are pleased that specific Cultural Heritage and Townscape and Visual Impact Chapters (ES Volume 1 Chapters 9 and 10) have been produced. We likewise welcome the helpful visualisations and photomontages. Using this additional material we have been able to confirm that there are only limited views from the designated heritage assets previously mentioned. The visualisations have indicated that the development will bring some changes to the setting of these assets; however we are of the view that any resulting harm would be moderate and that the commentary set out in the ES is broadly sufficient in this regard. We do not therefore consider it necessary to explore these issues any further, unless requested."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howes Percival LLP on behalf of Hitech Grand Prix Limited
"We act for Overseas Interests Inc, Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited. Separate representations have been made on behalf of each of our clients at this stage, although our client’s concerns are similar at this stage. We have previously engaged with Suffolk County Council and their legal representatives prior to the submission of the DCO application. Overseas Interests Inc are the registered proprietors of land registered under title number SK264748 (“the Land”). A significant proportion of the Land falls within the draft Order limits as amended in April 2018. Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited carry on various business activities on the Land. At this stage, our clients’ primary concerns may be summarised as follows, although our clients fully intend to submit full written representations supported by technical reports in due course once the examination begins: 1 The operation of our clients’ site requires HGVs to turn left immediately upon entering the site and to pass the west side of the building to make use of the weighbridge. HGVs do not pass the south side of the building as this is the area in which the car park and main personnel access is situated. This arrangement is crucial to ensure that HGV movements do not conflict with car traffic. HGVs leaving the property will turn and follow a route around the northern and western sides of the building to again make use of the weighbridge and avoid any conflict with cars and pedestrians. Our clients’ consider that the positioning and alignment of the proposed Third River Crossing will severely interfere with our clients’ businesses. 2 We understand the only modelling that has taken place in relation to vehicle movements in and out of the Land once the scheme has been constructed is for rigid body vehicles whereas our clients need access to the property for larger articulated vehicles. 3 The extent of the land shown as required for permanent acquisition of land and rights on Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) shown as Plots 3-29 3-30 appears to create a high probability that the current approach for vehicular movements shall not be preserved, certainly during the construction period. Indeed, there is a lack of certainty on how any future gating arrangements for our clients’ property shall affect vehicle movements in and out of the property given the proposed permanent acquisition of land at the point of current access. 4 Our clients’ business operations depend heavily on meeting delivery deadlines for orders received and continued operation relies on customers having confidence in the ability of our clients to achieve these. Any interruption to continuous access to the property in the manner required threatens not only existing contracts but also future work. Interruption to continuous access has the potential to have severe consequences for our clients’ businesses. 5 The draft development consent order does not provide any details on how any permanent rights for our clients to access the Land shall be secured in perpetuity and how these rights may be affected or interfered with during the construction phase or subsequently for maintenance or for access to the structures erected as part of the proposed project. 6 There is no evidence that our clients’ businesses will not be severely and irreparably affected by the construction and on-going operation of the proposed project (to the point of extinguishment or relocation) or that Suffolk County Council has suitably investigated alternative access solutions. Our clients have serious concerns about the continued operation of their businesses during the construction period. 7 Although plan 1069948-WSP-HML-LL-DR-CH-0201 indicates a minimum headroom of 5.3 metres for the proposed underpass to access the Land once the proposed project has been constructed this does not cater for all of the vehicles which our clients need to access the Land (notwithstanding our clients’ concerns regarding access during the construction period). These vehicles include a Yale GDP160 diesel fork truck (closed height on a special step frame low-loader for road transport: 5465mm) and a SMV SL37 top loader container handler (closed height on the ground: 6200mm and Maximum width of machine: 6030mm). The vehicles in question are laden container handling machines and large counter balance machines. These vehicles need to access our clients’ site between 15 – 20 times per year. Our clients anticipate that “de-masting” these vehicles either side of the proposed bridge shall result in significant cost which our clients shall have to incur in perpetuity as a result of the proposed project in connection with local short term movements of such equipment, if indeed our clients can continue to suitably operate from the property as a result of the proposed project. 8 We have concerns that alternative alignments of the proposed project and different access solutions to our clients’ Land have not been suitably considered prior to submission of the DCO application. 9 Our clients remain willing and open to adjustments to the proposed project to deal with our clients concerns but at this stage we have no comfort that this shall be possible within the limits of deviation of the submitted scheme. 10 Our clients have not been given comfort that alternative access solutions to our clients’ Land have been fully explored as solutions to our clients’ concerns. Particularly our clients consider that an access along the eastern edge of the land owned by PFK Ling Limited has not been suitably considered before the submission of the DCO application. 11 The area identified as Plot 3-56 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) has been identified as an area of the Land identified for temporary acquisition. There is no explanation given in the draft DCO as to why this area of land has been so identified. 12 This Plot 3-56 is an area of the Land which our clients have long identified for future development proposals. Our clients have real concerns that the proposed temporary acquisition of this Plot 3-56 shall stifle these development aspirations and the construction of the proposed project shall impact on these proposals in the future. This is particularly so without any details of why this area of land is proposed to be temporarily acquired, the specification of works that Suffolk County Council intends to carry out on this area of land or any indication as to how long the temporary acquisition of this part of our clients’ property shall endure. 13 Our clients have a real concern that the area identified as Plot 3-56 shall be effectively severed due to the gating and access requirements of our clients’ existing businesses – notwithstanding our concerns as to whether these may be suitably accommodated in light of the proposed project. Indeed, our clients have concerns that any joint access arrangements between our clients’ existing business operations and the proposed development land using the proposed underpass set out in the submitted scheme would be potentially unsound from a highway safety perspective, practically unworkable and be contrary to our clients’ established practice of separating HGV and car traffic/pedestrians as far as possible. 14 Our client Overseas Interests Inc has private property rights to use estate road shown as Plots 3-57 and 3-32 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and it appears that the proposed project shall frustrate the beneficial use of these rights, particularly to facilitate the development of the area identified as Plot 3-56 referred to above. Indeed, submitted plan 1069948-WSP-HAC-LL-DR-CH-0003 identifies this private means of access to Riverside Road as being stopped up as part of the proposed project which would frustrate a separate access to our clients’ proposed development land using this route. 15 Our clients also note that the land identified as Plot 3-52 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and Work No. 7 on the Works Plan Sheet 2 of 2 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-CH-0003) is identified in the draft development consent order for the construction of a new mooring within Lowestoft Harbour. Our clients’ have previously leased moorings adjacent to the Land and are concerned that this will not be practically possible during and following the construction of this new mooring. Furthermore, our clients have reservations about the ability to access their Land from Lake Lothing during and following the construction of this mooring. Our clients also have concerns relating to the powers set out in the draft DCO for the extinguishment of various rights of navigation within Lake Lothing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howes Percival LLP on behalf of Lift Truck Rentals Limited
"We act for Overseas Interests Inc, Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited. Separate representations have been made on behalf of each of our clients at this stage, although our client’s concerns are similar at this stage. We have previously engaged with Suffolk County Council and their legal representatives prior to the submission of the DCO application. Overseas Interests Inc are the registered proprietors of land registered under title number SK264748 (“the Land”). A significant proportion of the Land falls within the draft Order limits as amended in April 2018. Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited carry on various business activities on the Land. At this stage, our clients’ primary concerns may be summarised as follows, although our clients fully intend to submit full written representations supported by technical reports in due course once the examination begins: 1 The operation of our clients’ site requires HGVs to turn left immediately upon entering the site and to pass the west side of the building to make use of the weighbridge. HGVs do not pass the south side of the building as this is the area in which the car park and main personnel access is situated. This arrangement is crucial to ensure that HGV movements do not conflict with car traffic. HGVs leaving the property will turn and follow a route around the northern and western sides of the building to again make use of the weighbridge and avoid any conflict with cars and pedestrians. Our clients’ consider that the positioning and alignment of the proposed Third River Crossing will severely interfere with our clients’ businesses. 2 We understand the only modelling that has taken place in relation to vehicle movements in and out of the Land once the scheme has been constructed is for rigid body vehicles whereas our clients need access to the property for larger articulated vehicles. 3 The extent of the land shown as required for permanent acquisition of land and rights on Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) shown as Plots 3-29 3-30 appears to create a high probability that the current approach for vehicular movements shall not be preserved, certainly during the construction period. Indeed, there is a lack of certainty on how any future gating arrangements for our clients’ property shall affect vehicle movements in and out of the property given the proposed permanent acquisition of land at the point of current access. 4 Our clients’ business operations depend heavily on meeting delivery deadlines for orders received and continued operation relies on customers having confidence in the ability of our clients to achieve these. Any interruption to continuous access to the property in the manner required threatens not only existing contracts but also future work. Interruption to continuous access has the potential to have severe consequences for our clients’ businesses. 5 The draft development consent order does not provide any details on how any permanent rights for our clients to access the Land shall be secured in perpetuity and how these rights may be affected or interfered with during the construction phase or subsequently for maintenance or for access to the structures erected as part of the proposed project. 6 There is no evidence that our clients’ businesses will not be severely and irreparably affected by the construction and on-going operation of the proposed project (to the point of extinguishment or relocation) or that Suffolk County Council has suitably investigated alternative access solutions. Our clients have serious concerns about the continued operation of their businesses during the construction period. 7 Although plan 1069948-WSP-HML-LL-DR-CH-0201 indicates a minimum headroom of 5.3 metres for the proposed underpass to access the Land once the proposed project has been constructed this does not cater for all of the vehicles which our clients need to access the Land (notwithstanding our clients’ concerns regarding access during the construction period). These vehicles include a Yale GDP160 diesel fork truck (closed height on a special step frame low-loader for road transport: 5465mm) and a SMV SL37 top loader container handler (closed height on the ground: 6200mm and Maximum width of machine: 6030mm). The vehicles in question are laden container handling machines and large counter balance machines. These vehicles need to access our clients’ site between 15 – 20 times per year. Our clients anticipate that “de-masting” these vehicles either side of the proposed bridge shall result in significant cost which our clients shall have to incur in perpetuity as a result of the proposed project in connection with local short term movements of such equipment, if indeed our clients can continue to suitably operate from the property as a result of the proposed project. 8 We have concerns that alternative alignments of the proposed project and different access solutions to our clients’ Land have not been suitably considered prior to submission of the DCO application. 9 Our clients remain willing and open to adjustments to the proposed project to deal with our clients concerns but at this stage we have no comfort that this shall be possible within the limits of deviation of the submitted scheme. 10 Our clients have not been given comfort that alternative access solutions to our clients’ Land have been fully explored as solutions to our clients’ concerns. Particularly our clients consider that an access along the eastern edge of the land owned by PFK Ling Limited has not been suitably considered before the submission of the DCO application. 11 The area identified as Plot 3-56 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) has been identified as an area of the Land identified for temporary acquisition. There is no explanation given in the draft DCO as to why this area of land has been so identified. 12 This Plot 3-56 is an area of the Land which our clients have long identified for future development proposals. Our clients have real concerns that the proposed temporary acquisition of this Plot 3-56 shall stifle these development aspirations and the construction of the proposed project shall impact on these proposals in the future. This is particularly so without any details of why this area of land is proposed to be temporarily acquired, the specification of works that Suffolk County Council intends to carry out on this area of land or any indication as to how long the temporary acquisition of this part of our clients’ property shall endure. 13 Our clients have a real concern that the area identified as Plot 3-56 shall be effectively severed due to the gating and access requirements of our clients’ existing businesses – notwithstanding our concerns as to whether these may be suitably accommodated in light of the proposed project. Indeed, our clients have concerns that any joint access arrangements between our clients’ existing business operations and the proposed development land using the proposed underpass set out in the submitted scheme would be potentially unsound from a highway safety perspective, practically unworkable and be contrary to our clients’ established practice of separating HGV and car traffic/pedestrians as far as possible. 14 Our client Overseas Interests Inc has private property rights to use estate road shown as Plots 3-57 and 3-32 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and it appears that the proposed project shall frustrate the beneficial use of these rights, particularly to facilitate the development of the area identified as Plot 3-56 referred to above. Indeed, submitted plan 1069948-WSP-HAC-LL-DR-CH-0003 identifies this private means of access to Riverside Road as being stopped up as part of the proposed project which would frustrate a separate access to our clients’ proposed development land using this route. 15 Our clients also note that the land identified as Plot 3-52 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and Work No. 7 on the Works Plan Sheet 2 of 2 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-CH-0003) is identified in the draft development consent order for the construction of a new mooring within Lowestoft Harbour. Our clients’ have previously leased moorings adjacent to the Land and are concerned that this will not be practically possible during and following the construction of this new mooring. Furthermore, our clients have reservations about the ability to access their Land from Lake Lothing during and following the construction of this mooring. Our clients also have concerns relating to the powers set out in the draft DCO for the extinguishment of various rights of navigation within Lake Lothing. "
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Marine Management Organisation
"Dear Sir/Madam, THE PROPOSED LAKE LOTHING THIRD CROSSING, LOWESTOFT ORDER RESPONSE TO SECTION 56 OF THE PLANNING ACT 2008 (AS AMENDED) The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is an interested party for the examination of Development Consent Order (DCO) applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) in the marine area. The MMO received notification on 20 August 2018 stating that the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) (on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) has accepted an application from Suffolk County Council (“the Applicant”), for a DCO for The Lake Lothing Third Crossing, Lowestoft. The MMO has an interest in this project because the development contains the construction of new highway comprising carriageway and cycleway over Lake Lothing, with associated activities occurring both over and within the marine environment. The DCO application includes a Deemed Marine Licence (DML) under Section 65 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA 2009) and should consent be granted for the project, the MMO will be responsible for monitoring, compliance and enforcement of DML conditions. During the pre-application stages of this application the applicant has engaged with the MMO on a number of occasions. Specifically, the MMO has been provided with the opportunity to review and comment on draft versions of the DCO and DML. Whilst the MMO provided a Scoping Opinion with regards to the proposed content of the Environmental Statement (ES), the MMO was not provided with the opportunity to review any draft versions of the ES prior to submission to PINS. Due to the length of the representation, the MMO is unable to submit its comments in full via the PINS website. Instead, a copy of the MMO’s full representation has been submitted to PINS via email ([email protected]). The main points raised in the MMO’s representation are summarised below: • The MMO is of the opinion that the ES generally provides a thorough assessment of the potential impacts on the marine environment from the construction activities associated with the construction of the proposed bridge crossing at Lake Lothing. However, the MMO considers that further consideration of the environmental impacts of the proposed development is required. • Despite comments being made by the MMO, some aspects of the documents that have been submitted to PINS in support of the DCO application remain unchanged since the last consultation response that the MMO issued. • It is the advice of the MMO that the issues raised in our full representation to PINS be addressed, should the proposal be granted development consent via a DCO. In light of this, the MMO would welcome future engagement from the developer to ensure that the issues are resolved in a timely manner."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howes Percival LLP on behalf of Nexen Lift Trucks Limited
"We act for Overseas Interests Inc, Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited. Separate representations have been made on behalf of each of our clients at this stage, although our client’s concerns are similar at this stage. We have previously engaged with Suffolk County Council and their legal representatives prior to the submission of the DCO application. Overseas Interests Inc are the registered proprietors of land registered under title number SK264748 (“the Land”). A significant proportion of the Land falls within the draft Order limits as amended in April 2018. Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited carry on various business activities on the Land. At this stage, our clients’ primary concerns may be summarised as follows, although our clients fully intend to submit full written representations supported by technical reports in due course once the examination begins: 1 The operation of our clients’ site requires HGVs to turn left immediately upon entering the site and to pass the west side of the building to make use of the weighbridge. HGVs do not pass the south side of the building as this is the area in which the car park and main personnel access is situated. This arrangement is crucial to ensure that HGV movements do not conflict with car traffic. HGVs leaving the property will turn and follow a route around the northern and western sides of the building to again make use of the weighbridge and avoid any conflict with cars and pedestrians. Our clients’ consider that the positioning and alignment of the proposed Third River Crossing will severely interfere with our clients’ businesses. 2 We understand the only modelling that has taken place in relation to vehicle movements in and out of the Land once the scheme has been constructed is for rigid body vehicles whereas our clients need access to the property for larger articulated vehicles. 3 The extent of the land shown as required for permanent acquisition of land and rights on Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) shown as Plots 3-29 3-30 appears to create a high probability that the current approach for vehicular movements shall not be preserved, certainly during the construction period. Indeed, there is a lack of certainty on how any future gating arrangements for our clients’ property shall affect vehicle movements in and out of the property given the proposed permanent acquisition of land at the point of current access. 4 Our clients’ business operations depend heavily on meeting delivery deadlines for orders received and continued operation relies on customers having confidence in the ability of our clients to achieve these. Any interruption to continuous access to the property in the manner required threatens not only existing contracts but also future work. Interruption to continuous access has the potential to have severe consequences for our clients’ businesses. 5 The draft development consent order does not provide any details on how any permanent rights for our clients to access the Land shall be secured in perpetuity and how these rights may be affected or interfered with during the construction phase or subsequently for maintenance or for access to the structures erected as part of the proposed project. 6 There is no evidence that our clients’ businesses will not be severely and irreparably affected by the construction and on-going operation of the proposed project (to the point of extinguishment or relocation) or that Suffolk County Council has suitably investigated alternative access solutions. Our clients have serious concerns about the continued operation of their businesses during the construction period. 7 Although plan 1069948-WSP-HML-LL-DR-CH-0201 indicates a minimum headroom of 5.3 metres for the proposed underpass to access the Land once the proposed project has been constructed this does not cater for all of the vehicles which our clients need to access the Land (notwithstanding our clients’ concerns regarding access during the construction period). These vehicles include a Yale GDP160 diesel fork truck (closed height on a special step frame low-loader for road transport: 5465mm) and a SMV SL37 top loader container handler (closed height on the ground: 6200mm and Maximum width of machine: 6030mm). The vehicles in question are laden container handling machines and large counter balance machines. These vehicles need to access our clients’ site between 15 – 20 times per year. Our clients anticipate that “de-masting” these vehicles either side of the proposed bridge shall result in significant cost which our clients shall have to incur in perpetuity as a result of the proposed project in connection with local short term movements of such equipment, if indeed our clients can continue to suitably operate from the property as a result of the proposed project. 8 We have concerns that alternative alignments of the proposed project and different access solutions to our clients’ Land have not been suitably considered prior to submission of the DCO application. 9 Our clients remain willing and open to adjustments to the proposed project to deal with our clients concerns but at this stage we have no comfort that this shall be possible within the limits of deviation of the submitted scheme. 10 Our clients have not been given comfort that alternative access solutions to our clients’ Land have been fully explored as solutions to our clients’ concerns. Particularly our clients consider that an access along the eastern edge of the land owned by PFK Ling Limited has not been suitably considered before the submission of the DCO application. 11 The area identified as Plot 3-56 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) has been identified as an area of the Land identified for temporary acquisition. There is no explanation given in the draft DCO as to why this area of land has been so identified. 12 This Plot 3-56 is an area of the Land which our clients have long identified for future development proposals. Our clients have real concerns that the proposed temporary acquisition of this Plot 3-56 shall stifle these development aspirations and the construction of the proposed project shall impact on these proposals in the future. This is particularly so without any details of why this area of land is proposed to be temporarily acquired, the specification of works that Suffolk County Council intends to carry out on this area of land or any indication as to how long the temporary acquisition of this part of our clients’ property shall endure. 13 Our clients have a real concern that the area identified as Plot 3-56 shall be effectively severed due to the gating and access requirements of our clients’ existing businesses – notwithstanding our concerns as to whether these may be suitably accommodated in light of the proposed project. Indeed, our clients have concerns that any joint access arrangements between our clients’ existing business operations and the proposed development land using the proposed underpass set out in the submitted scheme would be potentially unsound from a highway safety perspective, practically unworkable and be contrary to our clients’ established practice of separating HGV and car traffic/pedestrians as far as possible. 14 Our client Overseas Interests Inc has private property rights to use estate road shown as Plots 3-57 and 3-32 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and it appears that the proposed project shall frustrate the beneficial use of these rights, particularly to facilitate the development of the area identified as Plot 3-56 referred to above. Indeed, submitted plan 1069948-WSP-HAC-LL-DR-CH-0003 identifies this private means of access to Riverside Road as being stopped up as part of the proposed project which would frustrate a separate access to our clients’ proposed development land using this route. 15 Our clients also note that the land identified as Plot 3-52 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and Work No. 7 on the Works Plan Sheet 2 of 2 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-CH-0003) is identified in the draft development consent order for the construction of a new mooring within Lowestoft Harbour. Our clients’ have previously leased moorings adjacent to the Land and are concerned that this will not be practically possible during and following the construction of this new mooring. Furthermore, our clients have reservations about the ability to access their Land from Lake Lothing during and following the construction of this mooring. Our clients also have concerns relating to the powers set out in the draft DCO for the extinguishment of various rights of navigation within Lake Lothing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association
"I apply for registration so that I may, as chairman of the NSBA, make representations in response to the planning consultaion. Many thanks Brian Wilkins"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howes Percival LLP on behalf of Oakes Recruitment Limited
"We act for Overseas Interests Inc, Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited. Separate representations have been made on behalf of each of our clients at this stage, although our client’s concerns are similar at this stage. We have previously engaged with Suffolk County Council and their legal representatives prior to the submission of the DCO application. Overseas Interests Inc are the registered proprietors of land registered under title number SK264748 (“the Land”). A significant proportion of the Land falls within the draft Order limits as amended in April 2018. Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited carry on various business activities on the Land. At this stage, our clients’ primary concerns may be summarised as follows, although our clients fully intend to submit full written representations supported by technical reports in due course once the examination begins: 1 The operation of our clients’ site requires HGVs to turn left immediately upon entering the site and to pass the west side of the building to make use of the weighbridge. HGVs do not pass the south side of the building as this is the area in which the car park and main personnel access is situated. This arrangement is crucial to ensure that HGV movements do not conflict with car traffic. HGVs leaving the property will turn and follow a route around the northern and western sides of the building to again make use of the weighbridge and avoid any conflict with cars and pedestrians. Our clients’ consider that the positioning and alignment of the proposed Third River Crossing will severely interfere with our clients’ businesses. 2 We understand the only modelling that has taken place in relation to vehicle movements in and out of the Land once the scheme has been constructed is for rigid body vehicles whereas our clients need access to the property for larger articulated vehicles. 3 The extent of the land shown as required for permanent acquisition of land and rights on Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) shown as Plots 3-29 3-30 appears to create a high probability that the current approach for vehicular movements shall not be preserved, certainly during the construction period. Indeed, there is a lack of certainty on how any future gating arrangements for our clients’ property shall affect vehicle movements in and out of the property given the proposed permanent acquisition of land at the point of current access. 4 Our clients’ business operations depend heavily on meeting delivery deadlines for orders received and continued operation relies on customers having confidence in the ability of our clients to achieve these. Any interruption to continuous access to the property in the manner required threatens not only existing contracts but also future work. Interruption to continuous access has the potential to have severe consequences for our clients’ businesses. 5 The draft development consent order does not provide any details on how any permanent rights for our clients to access the Land shall be secured in perpetuity and how these rights may be affected or interfered with during the construction phase or subsequently for maintenance or for access to the structures erected as part of the proposed project. 6 There is no evidence that our clients’ businesses will not be severely and irreparably affected by the construction and on-going operation of the proposed project (to the point of extinguishment or relocation) or that Suffolk County Council has suitably investigated alternative access solutions. Our clients have serious concerns about the continued operation of their businesses during the construction period. 7 Although plan 1069948-WSP-HML-LL-DR-CH-0201 indicates a minimum headroom of 5.3 metres for the proposed underpass to access the Land once the proposed project has been constructed this does not cater for all of the vehicles which our clients need to access the Land (notwithstanding our clients’ concerns regarding access during the construction period). These vehicles include a Yale GDP160 diesel fork truck (closed height on a special step frame low-loader for road transport: 5465mm) and a SMV SL37 top loader container handler (closed height on the ground: 6200mm and Maximum width of machine: 6030mm). The vehicles in question are laden container handling machines and large counter balance machines. These vehicles need to access our clients’ site between 15 – 20 times per year. Our clients anticipate that “de-masting” these vehicles either side of the proposed bridge shall result in significant cost which our clients shall have to incur in perpetuity as a result of the proposed project in connection with local short term movements of such equipment, if indeed our clients can continue to suitably operate from the property as a result of the proposed project. 8 We have concerns that alternative alignments of the proposed project and different access solutions to our clients’ Land have not been suitably considered prior to submission of the DCO application. 9 Our clients remain willing and open to adjustments to the proposed project to deal with our clients concerns but at this stage we have no comfort that this shall be possible within the limits of deviation of the submitted scheme. 10 Our clients have not been given comfort that alternative access solutions to our clients’ Land have been fully explored as solutions to our clients’ concerns. Particularly our clients consider that an access along the eastern edge of the land owned by PFK Ling Limited has not been suitably considered before the submission of the DCO application. 11 The area identified as Plot 3-56 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) has been identified as an area of the Land identified for temporary acquisition. There is no explanation given in the draft DCO as to why this area of land has been so identified. 12 This Plot 3-56 is an area of the Land which our clients have long identified for future development proposals. Our clients have real concerns that the proposed temporary acquisition of this Plot 3-56 shall stifle these development aspirations and the construction of the proposed project shall impact on these proposals in the future. This is particularly so without any details of why this area of land is proposed to be temporarily acquired, the specification of works that Suffolk County Council intends to carry out on this area of land or any indication as to how long the temporary acquisition of this part of our clients’ property shall endure. 13 Our clients have a real concern that the area identified as Plot 3-56 shall be effectively severed due to the gating and access requirements of our clients’ existing businesses – notwithstanding our concerns as to whether these may be suitably accommodated in light of the proposed project. Indeed, our clients have concerns that any joint access arrangements between our clients’ existing business operations and the proposed development land using the proposed underpass set out in the submitted scheme would be potentially unsound from a highway safety perspective, practically unworkable and be contrary to our clients’ established practice of separating HGV and car traffic/pedestrians as far as possible. 14 Our client Overseas Interests Inc has private property rights to use estate road shown as Plots 3-57 and 3-32 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and it appears that the proposed project shall frustrate the beneficial use of these rights, particularly to facilitate the development of the area identified as Plot 3-56 referred to above. Indeed, submitted plan 1069948-WSP-HAC-LL-DR-CH-0003 identifies this private means of access to Riverside Road as being stopped up as part of the proposed project which would frustrate a separate access to our clients’ proposed development land using this route. 15 Our clients also note that the land identified as Plot 3-52 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and Work No. 7 on the Works Plan Sheet 2 of 2 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-CH-0003) is identified in the draft development consent order for the construction of a new mooring within Lowestoft Harbour. Our clients’ have previously leased moorings adjacent to the Land and are concerned that this will not be practically possible during and following the construction of this new mooring. Furthermore, our clients have reservations about the ability to access their Land from Lake Lothing during and following the construction of this mooring. Our clients also have concerns relating to the powers set out in the draft DCO for the extinguishment of various rights of navigation within Lake Lothing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howes Percival LLP on behalf of Overseas Interests Inc
"We act for Overseas Interests Inc, Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited. Separate representations have been made on behalf of each of our clients at this stage, although our client’s concerns are similar at this stage. We have previously engaged with Suffolk County Council and their legal representatives prior to the submission of the DCO application. Overseas Interests Inc are the registered proprietors of land registered under title number SK264748 (“the Land”). A significant proportion of the Land falls within the draft Order limits as amended in April 2018. Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited carry on various business activities on the Land. At this stage, our clients’ primary concerns may be summarised as follows, although our clients fully intend to submit full written representations supported by technical reports in due course once the examination begins: 1 The operation of our clients’ site requires HGVs to turn left immediately upon entering the site and to pass the west side of the building to make use of the weighbridge. HGVs do not pass the south side of the building as this is the area in which the car park and main personnel access is situated. This arrangement is crucial to ensure that HGV movements do not conflict with car traffic. HGVs leaving the property will turn and follow a route around the northern and western sides of the building to again make use of the weighbridge and avoid any conflict with cars and pedestrians. Our clients’ consider that the positioning and alignment of the proposed Third River Crossing will severely interfere with our clients’ businesses. 2 We understand the only modelling that has taken place in relation to vehicle movements in and out of the Land once the scheme has been constructed is for rigid body vehicles whereas our clients need access to the property for larger articulated vehicles. 3 The extent of the land shown as required for permanent acquisition of land and rights on Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) shown as Plots 3-29 3-30 appears to create a high probability that the current approach for vehicular movements shall not be preserved, certainly during the construction period. Indeed, there is a lack of certainty on how any future gating arrangements for our clients’ property shall affect vehicle movements in and out of the property given the proposed permanent acquisition of land at the point of current access. 4 Our clients’ business operations depend heavily on meeting delivery deadlines for orders received and continued operation relies on customers having confidence in the ability of our clients to achieve these. Any interruption to continuous access to the property in the manner required threatens not only existing contracts but also future work. Interruption to continuous access has the potential to have severe consequences for our clients’ businesses. 5 The draft development consent order does not provide any details on how any permanent rights for our clients to access the Land shall be secured in perpetuity and how these rights may be affected or interfered with during the construction phase or subsequently for maintenance or for access to the structures erected as part of the proposed project. 6 There is no evidence that our clients’ businesses will not be severely and irreparably affected by the construction and on-going operation of the proposed project (to the point of extinguishment or relocation) or that Suffolk County Council has suitably investigated alternative access solutions. Our clients have serious concerns about the continued operation of their businesses during the construction period. 7 Although plan 1069948-WSP-HML-LL-DR-CH-0201 indicates a minimum headroom of 5.3 metres for the proposed underpass to access the Land once the proposed project has been constructed this does not cater for all of the vehicles which our clients need to access the Land (notwithstanding our clients’ concerns regarding access during the construction period). These vehicles include a Yale GDP160 diesel fork truck (closed height on a special step frame low-loader for road transport: 5465mm) and a SMV SL37 top loader container handler (closed height on the ground: 6200mm and Maximum width of machine: 6030mm). The vehicles in question are laden container handling machines and large counter balance machines. These vehicles need to access our clients’ site between 15 – 20 times per year. Our clients anticipate that “de-masting” these vehicles either side of the proposed bridge shall result in significant cost which our clients shall have to incur in perpetuity as a result of the proposed project in connection with local short term movements of such equipment, if indeed our clients can continue to suitably operate from the property as a result of the proposed project. 8 We have concerns that alternative alignments of the proposed project and different access solutions to our clients’ Land have not been suitably considered prior to submission of the DCO application. 9 Our clients remain willing and open to adjustments to the proposed project to deal with our clients concerns but at this stage we have no comfort that this shall be possible within the limits of deviation of the submitted scheme. 10 Our clients have not been given comfort that alternative access solutions to our clients’ Land have been fully explored as solutions to our clients’ concerns. Particularly our clients consider that an access along the eastern edge of the land owned by PFK Ling Limited has not been suitably considered before the submission of the DCO application. 11 The area identified as Plot 3-56 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) has been identified as an area of the Land identified for temporary acquisition. There is no explanation given in the draft DCO as to why this area of land has been so identified. 12 This Plot 3-56 is an area of the Land which our clients have long identified for future development proposals. Our clients have real concerns that the proposed temporary acquisition of this Plot 3-56 shall stifle these development aspirations and the construction of the proposed project shall impact on these proposals in the future. This is particularly so without any details of why this area of land is proposed to be temporarily acquired, the specification of works that Suffolk County Council intends to carry out on this area of land or any indication as to how long the temporary acquisition of this part of our clients’ property shall endure. 13 Our clients have a real concern that the area identified as Plot 3-56 shall be effectively severed due to the gating and access requirements of our clients’ existing businesses – notwithstanding our concerns as to whether these may be suitably accommodated in light of the proposed project. Indeed, our clients have concerns that any joint access arrangements between our clients’ existing business operations and the proposed development land using the proposed underpass set out in the submitted scheme would be potentially unsound from a highway safety perspective, practically unworkable and be contrary to our clients’ established practice of separating HGV and car traffic/pedestrians as far as possible. 14 Our client Overseas Interests Inc has private property rights to use estate road shown as Plots 3-57 and 3-32 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and it appears that the proposed project shall frustrate the beneficial use of these rights, particularly to facilitate the development of the area identified as Plot 3-56 referred to above. Indeed, submitted plan 1069948-WSP-HAC-LL-DR-CH-0003 identifies this private means of access to Riverside Road as being stopped up as part of the proposed project which would frustrate a separate access to our clients’ proposed development land using this route. 15 Our clients also note that the land identified as Plot 3-52 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and Work No. 7 on the Works Plan Sheet 2 of 2 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-CH-0003) is identified in the draft development consent order for the construction of a new mooring within Lowestoft Harbour. Our clients’ have previously leased moorings adjacent to the Land and are concerned that this will not be practically possible during and following the construction of this new mooring. Furthermore, our clients have reservations about the ability to access their Land from Lake Lothing during and following the construction of this mooring. Our clients also have concerns relating to the powers set out in the draft DCO for the extinguishment of various rights of navigation within Lake Lothing. "
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals and Environmental Statement (ES) at this stage of the project. Our records show that we have previously responded to the following enquiries/ consultations regarding this proposal: • Request for Scoping Opinion dated 24 March 2017 • Section 42 consultation dated 5 September 2017 We have assessed the submitted documentation and wish to make the following comments. 1. We are generally satisfied with the proposed methodology and find that it is in line with current guidance and good practice. 2. We note the inclusion of an interim construction code of practice (CoCP), to be finalised with the contractor. 3. The promoter does not include a decommissioning environmental management plan (DEMP) and makes the observation that “environmental constraints in the mid-22nd century cannot be reasonably predicted, further consideration of decommissioning is not considered appropriate”. We note this and are broadly satisfied with the promoter’s rationale, as they note that material resources will largely consist of commonly used construction materials, specifically imported fill, aggregates, bitumen, reinforced concrete and steel as documented within Chapter 14 of the ES. 4. The current documentation includes no references to EMF emissions from the site. We recommend that the proposer: a) Identify if the proposed development has electricity generation and/or distribution infrastructure that may result in the emission of electric and/or magnetic fields such that there is the potential for an adverse impact on public health. Where electricity generation and/or distribution equipment is identified an assessment of potential EMF exposures should be included. b) Should the proposer believe that EMF can be scoped out of the assessments they should clearly state their assumptions and rationale in the application for DCO submission. We reserve the right to make additional comments or observations at a future date. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact us. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of Royal Mail Group Limited
"Royal Mail Group Limited (Royal Mail) hereby wishes to notify the Examining Authority under section 89(2A) b of the Planning Act 2008 that Royal Mail is to become an Interested Party to the Examination into the Lake Lothing Third Crossing. Under section 35 of the Postal Services Act 2011 (the “Act”), Royal Mail has been designated by Ofcom as a provider of the Universal Postal Service. Royal Mail is the only such provider in the United Kingdom. The Act provides that Ofcom’s primary regulatory duty is to secure the provision of the Universal Postal Service. Ofcom discharges this duty by imposing regulatory conditions on Royal Mail, requiring it to provide the Universal Postal Service. The Act includes a set of minimum standards for Universal Service Providers, which Ofcom must secure. The conditions imposed by Ofcom reflect those standards. Royal Mail is under some of the highest specification performance obligations for quality of service in Europe. Its performance of the Universal Service Provider obligations is in the public interest and should not be affected detrimentally by any statutorily authorised project. Royal Mail’s postal sorting and delivery operations rely heavily on road communications. Royal Mail’s ability to provide efficient mail collection, sorting and delivery to the public is sensitive to changes in the capacity of the highway network. Royal Mail is a major road user nationally. Disruption to the highway network and traffic delays can have direct consequences on Royal Mail’s operations, its ability to meet the Universal Service Obligation and comply with the regulatory regime for postal services thereby presenting a significant risk to Royal Mail’s business. Royal Mail’s nearest operational property is Lowestoft Delivery Office, Barnards Way, Lowestoft NR32 2ER, situated approximately 250 metres from the nearest part of the proposal site boundary on Peto Way. Every day, in exercising its statutory duties Royal Mail vehicles use all of the main roads that may potentially be affected by additional traffic arising from the construction of the proposed Lake Lothing Third Crossing. In particular, Peto Way and Tom Crisp Way are major routes for operational vehicles from Lowestoft Delivery Office. Royal Mail therefore wishes to ensure the protection of its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivery service to the public in accordance with its statutory obligations which may be adversely affected by the construction and operation of this proposed scheme. In order to address this, Royal Mail requests that: 1. Royal Mail is pre-consulted by Suffolk County Council or its contractors on any proposed road closures/ diversions/ alternative access arrangements, hours of working and the content of the final Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). 2. The final CTMP includes provision for a mechanism to inform major road users about works affecting the local network (with particular regard to Royal Mail’s distribution facilities in the vicinity of the DCO application site). Royal Mail may simply rely on this statement but reserves the right to make further representations to the Examination in due course once further information is available. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Royal Yachting Association
"The RYA is in full support of the Lowestoft Cruising Club (registration 20013128) and shares their agreements and disagreements with the Suffolk County Council Application for development consent. These points are as follows: Agreements 1. Welcomed the setting up by Suffolk County Council (SCC) of the Navigation Working Group (NWG), which Lowestoft Cruising Club (LCC) attended and contributed. The minutes of the NWG meetings (APP-090) form an important discussion of the navigation issues for recreational vessels. We agree with the overall conclusions and expect them to be implemented, and welcome a later meeting for a discussion with contractors regarding risks and mitigation measures during the construction process. 2. We fully support the provision of a waiting pontoon off Nexen (APP-015, 040 & 041, APP-136, APP-198, APP-205, page 20, parag. 5 & 6). 3. While the Vessel Simulation Report (APP-198) only modelled larger commercial vessel movements, the LCC conclude that the navigation risks to recreational vessels when the bridge is operational are only marginally increased. However, the navigation risks are significantly increased during the construction phase, and all recommended mitigation measures should be undertaken, along with those defined in APP-208 Navigation Risk Assessment. See also APP-136, page331. Disagreements 1. There is no clear commitment in the documentation (e.g. APP-136, page 330, parag. 15.5.18-21; Table 16-9) to maintain the existing navigation rights with at a minimum, openings of the new bridge to match the existing 24/7 opening schedule of the A47 bascule bridge, as given in ABP “Lowestoft Small Craft & Yacht Notice”, dated 7 November 2011. While most motor yachts will not require the new bridge to open, many larger yachts will require the new bridge to open and integrate with the A47 bascule bridge openings. The opening schedule for the new bridge should only be decided with the full involvement of the maritime community west of the bridge. 2. The summer closure of the western part of Lake Lothing to vessels for three weeks during the positioning of the bridge is unacceptable. APP-136, page 58, parag. 5.6.20 states [to quote] “For the purposes of the assessment it has been assumed that this possession [of navigation channel] will take place for three consecutive weeks during the summer months when recreational vessel movements in Lake Lothing are likely to be highest”. See APP-136, pages 328/9, parag. 15.5.9, Table 16-9 and page 356; parag. 16.7.1. We disagree with the quote that “the majority of vessels do not navigate to the west of the scheme”. The western end of Lake Lothing has four marinas, additional moorings, and also vessels traverse to and from the Mutford Lock. From the Vessel Survey Report (APP-208) one can deduce that closure of the navigation channel for three weeks in the summer would stop at least 400 vessel movements and create a moderate adverse impact (Table 15-2), not the “slight impact” given in paragraph 15.5.9 or the “minor adverse and not significant” impact quoted in Table 16-9 and page 356, parag. 16.7.1. We cannot agree that (to quote) "During this time[three weeks], no recreational vessel will be able to navigate through Lake Lothing to or from the North Sea but this does not constitute a significant effect due to the duration of the closure.” (APP-205 , page 20, parag. 3). A three week closure in the sailing season would influence a much longer period as vessels cruising before the closure would be unable to return to their moorings, and vessels planning to leave in e.g. school holidays for an extended cruise could well miss their cruising opportunity for the whole season. A three week closure might be acceptable if it takes place between November and March, the quietest part of the sailing season. However, should the application be granted we would hope that Suffolk County Council could liaise with the Cruising Club and other local stakeholders such as ABP and other local sailing clubs for alternative moorings to be made available during the three week closure period which would allow Cruising Club members to continue sailing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howes Percival LLP on behalf of Team Oakes Limited
"We act for Overseas Interests Inc, Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited. Separate representations have been made on behalf of each of our clients at this stage, although our client’s concerns are similar at this stage. We have previously engaged with Suffolk County Council and their legal representatives prior to the submission of the DCO application. Overseas Interests Inc are the registered proprietors of land registered under title number SK264748 (“the Land”). A significant proportion of the Land falls within the draft Order limits as amended in April 2018. Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited carry on various business activities on the Land. At this stage, our clients’ primary concerns may be summarised as follows, although our clients fully intend to submit full written representations supported by technical reports in due course once the examination begins: 1 The operation of our clients’ site requires HGVs to turn left immediately upon entering the site and to pass the west side of the building to make use of the weighbridge. HGVs do not pass the south side of the building as this is the area in which the car park and main personnel access is situated. This arrangement is crucial to ensure that HGV movements do not conflict with car traffic. HGVs leaving the property will turn and follow a route around the northern and western sides of the building to again make use of the weighbridge and avoid any conflict with cars and pedestrians. Our clients’ consider that the positioning and alignment of the proposed Third River Crossing will severely interfere with our clients’ businesses. 2 We understand the only modelling that has taken place in relation to vehicle movements in and out of the Land once the scheme has been constructed is for rigid body vehicles whereas our clients need access to the property for larger articulated vehicles. 3 The extent of the land shown as required for permanent acquisition of land and rights on Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) shown as Plots 3-29 3-30 appears to create a high probability that the current approach for vehicular movements shall not be preserved, certainly during the construction period. Indeed, there is a lack of certainty on how any future gating arrangements for our clients’ property shall affect vehicle movements in and out of the property given the proposed permanent acquisition of land at the point of current access. 4 Our clients’ business operations depend heavily on meeting delivery deadlines for orders received and continued operation relies on customers having confidence in the ability of our clients to achieve these. Any interruption to continuous access to the property in the manner required threatens not only existing contracts but also future work. Interruption to continuous access has the potential to have severe consequences for our clients’ businesses. 5 The draft development consent order does not provide any details on how any permanent rights for our clients to access the Land shall be secured in perpetuity and how these rights may be affected or interfered with during the construction phase or subsequently for maintenance or for access to the structures erected as part of the proposed project. 6 There is no evidence that our clients’ businesses will not be severely and irreparably affected by the construction and on-going operation of the proposed project (to the point of extinguishment or relocation) or that Suffolk County Council has suitably investigated alternative access solutions. Our clients have serious concerns about the continued operation of their businesses during the construction period. 7 Although plan 1069948-WSP-HML-LL-DR-CH-0201 indicates a minimum headroom of 5.3 metres for the proposed underpass to access the Land once the proposed project has been constructed this does not cater for all of the vehicles which our clients need to access the Land (notwithstanding our clients’ concerns regarding access during the construction period). These vehicles include a Yale GDP160 diesel fork truck (closed height on a special step frame low-loader for road transport: 5465mm) and a SMV SL37 top loader container handler (closed height on the ground: 6200mm and Maximum width of machine: 6030mm). The vehicles in question are laden container handling machines and large counter balance machines. These vehicles need to access our clients’ site between 15 – 20 times per year. Our clients anticipate that “de-masting” these vehicles either side of the proposed bridge shall result in significant cost which our clients shall have to incur in perpetuity as a result of the proposed project in connection with local short term movements of such equipment, if indeed our clients can continue to suitably operate from the property as a result of the proposed project. 8 We have concerns that alternative alignments of the proposed project and different access solutions to our clients’ Land have not been suitably considered prior to submission of the DCO application. 9 Our clients remain willing and open to adjustments to the proposed project to deal with our clients concerns but at this stage we have no comfort that this shall be possible within the limits of deviation of the submitted scheme. 10 Our clients have not been given comfort that alternative access solutions to our clients’ Land have been fully explored as solutions to our clients’ concerns. Particularly our clients consider that an access along the eastern edge of the land owned by PFK Ling Limited has not been suitably considered before the submission of the DCO application. 11 The area identified as Plot 3-56 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) has been identified as an area of the Land identified for temporary acquisition. There is no explanation given in the draft DCO as to why this area of land has been so identified. 12 This Plot 3-56 is an area of the Land which our clients have long identified for future development proposals. Our clients have real concerns that the proposed temporary acquisition of this Plot 3-56 shall stifle these development aspirations and the construction of the proposed project shall impact on these proposals in the future. This is particularly so without any details of why this area of land is proposed to be temporarily acquired, the specification of works that Suffolk County Council intends to carry out on this area of land or any indication as to how long the temporary acquisition of this part of our clients’ property shall endure. 13 Our clients have a real concern that the area identified as Plot 3-56 shall be effectively severed due to the gating and access requirements of our clients’ existing businesses – notwithstanding our concerns as to whether these may be suitably accommodated in light of the proposed project. Indeed, our clients have concerns that any joint access arrangements between our clients’ existing business operations and the proposed development land using the proposed underpass set out in the submitted scheme would be potentially unsound from a highway safety perspective, practically unworkable and be contrary to our clients’ established practice of separating HGV and car traffic/pedestrians as far as possible. 14 Our client Overseas Interests Inc has private property rights to use estate road shown as Plots 3-57 and 3-32 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and it appears that the proposed project shall frustrate the beneficial use of these rights, particularly to facilitate the development of the area identified as Plot 3-56 referred to above. Indeed, submitted plan 1069948-WSP-HAC-LL-DR-CH-0003 identifies this private means of access to Riverside Road as being stopped up as part of the proposed project which would frustrate a separate access to our clients’ proposed development land using this route. 15 Our clients also note that the land identified as Plot 3-52 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and Work No. 7 on the Works Plan Sheet 2 of 2 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-CH-0003) is identified in the draft development consent order for the construction of a new mooring within Lowestoft Harbour. Our clients’ have previously leased moorings adjacent to the Land and are concerned that this will not be practically possible during and following the construction of this new mooring. Furthermore, our clients have reservations about the ability to access their Land from Lake Lothing during and following the construction of this mooring. Our clients also have concerns relating to the powers set out in the draft DCO for the extinguishment of various rights of navigation within Lake Lothing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howes Percival LLP on behalf of Waveney Fork Trucks Limited
"We act for Overseas Interests Inc, Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited. Separate representations have been made on behalf of each of our clients at this stage, although our client’s concerns are similar at this stage. We have previously engaged with Suffolk County Council and their legal representatives prior to the submission of the DCO application. Overseas Interests Inc are the registered proprietors of land registered under title number SK264748 (“the Land”). A significant proportion of the Land falls within the draft Order limits as amended in April 2018. Waveney Fork Trucks Limited, Lift Truck Rentals Limited, Nexen Lift Trucks Limited, Oakes Recruitment Limited, Team Oakes Limited and Hitech Grand Prix Limited carry on various business activities on the Land. At this stage, our clients’ primary concerns may be summarised as follows, although our clients fully intend to submit full written representations supported by technical reports in due course once the examination begins: 1 The operation of our clients’ site requires HGVs to turn left immediately upon entering the site and to pass the west side of the building to make use of the weighbridge. HGVs do not pass the south side of the building as this is the area in which the car park and main personnel access is situated. This arrangement is crucial to ensure that HGV movements do not conflict with car traffic. HGVs leaving the property will turn and follow a route around the northern and western sides of the building to again make use of the weighbridge and avoid any conflict with cars and pedestrians. Our clients’ consider that the positioning and alignment of the proposed Third River Crossing will severely interfere with our clients’ businesses. 2 We understand the only modelling that has taken place in relation to vehicle movements in and out of the Land once the scheme has been constructed is for rigid body vehicles whereas our clients need access to the property for larger articulated vehicles. 3 The extent of the land shown as required for permanent acquisition of land and rights on Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) shown as Plots 3-29 3-30 appears to create a high probability that the current approach for vehicular movements shall not be preserved, certainly during the construction period. Indeed, there is a lack of certainty on how any future gating arrangements for our clients’ property shall affect vehicle movements in and out of the property given the proposed permanent acquisition of land at the point of current access. 4 Our clients’ business operations depend heavily on meeting delivery deadlines for orders received and continued operation relies on customers having confidence in the ability of our clients to achieve these. Any interruption to continuous access to the property in the manner required threatens not only existing contracts but also future work. Interruption to continuous access has the potential to have severe consequences for our clients’ businesses. 5 The draft development consent order does not provide any details on how any permanent rights for our clients to access the Land shall be secured in perpetuity and how these rights may be affected or interfered with during the construction phase or subsequently for maintenance or for access to the structures erected as part of the proposed project. 6 There is no evidence that our clients’ businesses will not be severely and irreparably affected by the construction and on-going operation of the proposed project (to the point of extinguishment or relocation) or that Suffolk County Council has suitably investigated alternative access solutions. Our clients have serious concerns about the continued operation of their businesses during the construction period. 7 Although plan 1069948-WSP-HML-LL-DR-CH-0201 indicates a minimum headroom of 5.3 metres for the proposed underpass to access the Land once the proposed project has been constructed this does not cater for all of the vehicles which our clients need to access the Land (notwithstanding our clients’ concerns regarding access during the construction period). These vehicles include a Yale GDP160 diesel fork truck (closed height on a special step frame low-loader for road transport: 5465mm) and a SMV SL37 top loader container handler (closed height on the ground: 6200mm and Maximum width of machine: 6030mm). The vehicles in question are laden container handling machines and large counter balance machines. These vehicles need to access our clients’ site between 15 – 20 times per year. Our clients anticipate that “de-masting” these vehicles either side of the proposed bridge shall result in significant cost which our clients shall have to incur in perpetuity as a result of the proposed project in connection with local short term movements of such equipment, if indeed our clients can continue to suitably operate from the property as a result of the proposed project. 8 We have concerns that alternative alignments of the proposed project and different access solutions to our clients’ Land have not been suitably considered prior to submission of the DCO application. 9 Our clients remain willing and open to adjustments to the proposed project to deal with our clients concerns but at this stage we have no comfort that this shall be possible within the limits of deviation of the submitted scheme. 10 Our clients have not been given comfort that alternative access solutions to our clients’ Land have been fully explored as solutions to our clients’ concerns. Particularly our clients consider that an access along the eastern edge of the land owned by PFK Ling Limited has not been suitably considered before the submission of the DCO application. 11 The area identified as Plot 3-56 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) has been identified as an area of the Land identified for temporary acquisition. There is no explanation given in the draft DCO as to why this area of land has been so identified. 12 This Plot 3-56 is an area of the Land which our clients have long identified for future development proposals. Our clients have real concerns that the proposed temporary acquisition of this Plot 3-56 shall stifle these development aspirations and the construction of the proposed project shall impact on these proposals in the future. This is particularly so without any details of why this area of land is proposed to be temporarily acquired, the specification of works that Suffolk County Council intends to carry out on this area of land or any indication as to how long the temporary acquisition of this part of our clients’ property shall endure. 13 Our clients have a real concern that the area identified as Plot 3-56 shall be effectively severed due to the gating and access requirements of our clients’ existing businesses – notwithstanding our concerns as to whether these may be suitably accommodated in light of the proposed project. Indeed, our clients have concerns that any joint access arrangements between our clients’ existing business operations and the proposed development land using the proposed underpass set out in the submitted scheme would be potentially unsound from a highway safety perspective, practically unworkable and be contrary to our clients’ established practice of separating HGV and car traffic/pedestrians as far as possible. 14 Our client Overseas Interests Inc has private property rights to use estate road shown as Plots 3-57 and 3-32 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and it appears that the proposed project shall frustrate the beneficial use of these rights, particularly to facilitate the development of the area identified as Plot 3-56 referred to above. Indeed, submitted plan 1069948-WSP-HAC-LL-DR-CH-0003 identifies this private means of access to Riverside Road as being stopped up as part of the proposed project which would frustrate a separate access to our clients’ proposed development land using this route. 15 Our clients also note that the land identified as Plot 3-52 on the Land Plan Sheet 3 of 5 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-GI-0004) and Work No. 7 on the Works Plan Sheet 2 of 2 (1069948-WSP-LSI-LL-DR-CH-0003) is identified in the draft development consent order for the construction of a new mooring within Lowestoft Harbour. Our clients’ have previously leased moorings adjacent to the Land and are concerned that this will not be practically possible during and following the construction of this new mooring. Furthermore, our clients have reservations about the ability to access their Land from Lake Lothing during and following the construction of this mooring. Our clients also have concerns relating to the powers set out in the draft DCO for the extinguishment of various rights of navigation within Lake Lothing. "