Oikos Marine & South Side Development

The list below includes a record of advice we have provided for this project. For a list of all advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate, including non-project related advice, please go to the Register of advice page.

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application, including the name of the person who requested the advice, and to make this publicly available.

Preview
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Louise This has been extremely helpful thanks once again for your assistance. May I just enquire further with regards to the applicants “Preliminary Environmental Information Report”. Is the (PEIR) the applicants opportunity to address the Inspectors concerns detailed in his “Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion" report.? Would it be reasonable to expect the applicant to comprehensively address the Inspectors specific concerns such as? - Risk of Major Accidents and/or Disasters and Flooding. Tidal, Breach and Over Topping / Fluvial and critical drainage issues. Addressing these issues will not only be of an advantage to the applicant, it would also give the local community confidence that the Local Authority will have considered all residual risk ramification of this application. There are reservations however that adverse public comments on such issues, however soundly formulated, having been submitted to the applicant may not be transmitted to the Inspector for further consideration. I am particularly grateful for your direction towards Sec47 of the Planning Act 2008 and the reference to the area of public consultation, “living in the vicinity of the land”. In this context what does this actually mean? For example, could it relate to the HSEs consultation distances (CD)or should it reflect the revised “Hazard Range” as determined by the Installations “Safety Report”. Some clarity would be helpful as to the term (vicinity) in respect of the possible impact on the wider area of residential properties that this public consultation should embrace. Thank you once again Yours sincerely
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email. The purpose of the Preliminary Environmental Report (PEIR) is to enable consultees (both specialist and non-specialist) to understand the likely environmental effects of the Proposed Development and help to inform their consultation responses on the Proposed Development during the pre-application stage. It is defined in s.12(2)(b) of the EIA Regulations as information which: (a) has been compiled by the applicant; and (b) is reasonably required for the consultation bodies to develop an informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the development (and of any associated development)’ The Applicant recently published an update on their project website concerning their plans for formal pre-application consultation which they intend to commence in early 2021: [attachment 1] In this update the Applicant states that the formal Environmental Information Scoping Opinion received from the Planning Inspectorate has been used to continue to progress the design of the project and to develop their programme of environmental assessment, (along with the responses received during the 2019 informal consultation and ongoing discussion with various stakeholders) and therefore this should inform any consultation documents provided by the Applicant during their statutory consultation next year. Please note that an Inspector (Examining Authority) will not be appointed until the application for this project is accepted for Examination. To answer your second query, it is for the Applicant to determine during the Pre-Application period which parties fall under the category of s47 (‘people living within the vicinity of the land’), and for them to then justify their compliance within their application for development consent. The Applicant is expected to consult with relevant local authorities, statutory consultees and those owning or having an interest in the land that would be affected by the proposed development. The Applicant should have regard to guidance as well as the views of relevant local authorities on their proposed consultation with the local community under s47. I hope that this has been of help to you. Kind regards

17 September 2020
John Webb
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Louise, Please see this speedy response from Oikos Community Relations to my email dated 12th July 2020 from which I have made the following observations. Oikos agree that effective engagement is a critical element of the DCO process and express that the SoCC is essentially a plan of activities undertaken to consult local communities. As to content of this engagement however they state that:- The SoCC itself does not, therefore, include detailed information about the proposal, the likely implications of the project, nor does it summarise the consultation undertaken to date or the views of the local community. Information relating to the project and its likely impacts and implications is included in the Preliminary Environmental information Report. It is not clear how this can be regarded as effective engagement if the Statement of Community Consultation does not reflect the unique circumstances of the community/area of Canvey Island. If this is indeed the correct procedure, it seems that the SoCC event undertaken by Oikos will only take the form of a Presentation and not a Consultation. Those with the concerns that have been highlighted as Local Issues, need not therefore partake in the process but instead await the production of a “Preliminary Environmental information Report.” As such Public Safety concerns effectively become an afterthought. This does not seem to correspond with the spirit of Advice note 8.1 “3. Statutory consultation with the local community This is required and is usually carried out nearer to the submission of the application. At this stage the project is likely to be more defined, although the developer should retain the flexibility to alter the development based on consultation feedback. The developer is under a legal duty to demonstrate that they have had regard to consultation responses at this stage, although that isn’t to say that they must agree with all of the views put to them in the responses recieved.” What is apparent is that it is not in the applicants interest to discuss the increased Ramifications of Major Accidents, residual or otherwise, nor is it the interest of Castle Point Borough Council to take ownership of Societal Risk when it impacts on their Local Planning aspirations. It is therefore imperative that public participation of the examination of this project is encouraged and I am extremely grateful for your assistance with this matter. Yours sincerely
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email, and I apologise again for the delay in replying. The Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) is a statement setting out how the applicant’s consultation activities within the areas impacted by the proposed development will be conducted, including details of public consultation events (e.g. dates, locations, which documents will be available to view at the event etc) and how views on the proposed development can be submitted. An example of a SoCC for an earlier port development nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) can be viewed here: [attachment 1]. The applicant is statutorily required to consult with each local authority within the vicinity of the proposed development on the intended content of this statement, and to have regard to any responses provided. The views of the affected local authorities on the applicant’s intended consultation with the community must be reflected in the final version of the SoCC. The Preliminary Environmental Information Report is often provided in draft form at public consultation events for review, after which comments can be submitted to the applicant. On submitting their application for development consent, the applicant must demonstrate that they have met all statutory requirements necessary for their application to be accepted for Examination, which includes the requirements relating to the Statement of Community Consultation, as set out in s47 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) . If the applicant has not demonstrated in their application that they have met these statutory requirements, their application may not be accepted for Examination. During the Pre-Application period, the Planning Inspectorate will provide advice to the applicant on the statutory requirements that they must meet in order for their application for development consent to be accepted, as outlined above. I hope that this email has been of help to you. Please contact us if you have any further queries. Yours sincerely

09 September 2020
John Webb
Enquiry received via email
Dear Louise, Thank you for your quick and informative response. There has already been a public consultation undertaken by Oikos at the Paddocks Community Centre on Canvey Island, where strong public concerns were expressed at that time. There are several of us taking an interest, who have not seen a “Statement of Community Consultation” reflecting the unique circumstances of Canvey Island. The Island’s population of approximately 40,000 is accommodated in the high-density development within the residential and commercial areas. Historically residential provision has been undertaken on a piecemeal basis and not strategically planned, leading to incremental development in and around the COMAH sites on Canvey Island, some within consultation distances all within the hazard range. Canvey Islanders, blissfully unaware of the risk and ramification of an industrial accident such as a BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion) or (Unconfined Vapour Cloud Explosions) residual or otherwise, emanating from the Major Hazardous Sites. The Community are being asked to trust that CPBC’s Cabinet Members and not the Hazardous Substance Authority, have the relevant expertise required to secure the communities safety and that all appropriate emergency planning logistics are in place. Canvey islanders are perhaps not fully aware of the challenges presented that come from living below sea level. Although the risk is reduced by sea defences those defences are in constant need of maintenance and improving in line with global warming. The flooding of a defended area, be it via a breach or overtopping, is described as having a catastrophic outcome. The issue of surface water flooding is however more apparent, with the urgent need to improve the control and removal of surface water due to inadequate and poorly maintained drainage infrastructure. The complicated management and the lack of pumping capacity against tidal influence is an additional problem. It is not unreasonable to suggest that our local authority has not expressed fully their overall knowledge of local issues. It has been reasoned that this is because of the need, not to create an unduly atmosphere of fear of pending disasters, or the subsequent devaluation of property. It needs to be recognised that by registering as an Interested Party, taking part in representation, highlighting such points of concern, would put individuals in line for criticism from the very members of the community, that the Local Authority have failed to protect. Having said that, there are community members that wish to register as an interested party so that the community’s concerns are expressed. Can I therefore request, that we be informed immediately the Planning Inspectorate accepts this proposal to hugely increase the storage capacity of hazardous materials, so that application for registration can be made well in time for the deadline. Louise thanks once again for your assistance, your further thoughts and guidance is very much appreciated. Yours Sincerely, John Webb
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email. The applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) will form part of their Pre-Application statutory consultation activities as per s47 of the Planning Act 2008, and has not yet been made public. We advise that you contact the Applicant directly for updates on their public consultation activities, as well as to inform them of your concerns for the proposed development as outlined below. If the application is submitted and accepted for Examination we advise that you include these concerns in your representation to register as an Interested Party with as much detail as possible, so that they can form part of the Examining Authority’s Examination of the proposed development. The Planning Inspectorate’s role during the Pre-Application stage is primarily to act in an advisory capacity to the Applicant in preparing their application documents for submission. When the application is submitted, the Planning Inspectorate will review all documents provided as part of the application to ensure that the Applicant has sufficiently fulfilled their statutory requirements, including their consultation activities with the public. The Planning Inspectorate is not able to contact individual parties as per your request below, however by registering for email updates via the project webpage you will be notified straightaway once the application for the Oikos Port Development project has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, when a decision is made on whether to accept the application for Examination, and when the registration for Interested Parties is open. Yours sincerely Louise Evans

01 July 2020
John Webb
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Dear Emily Having been informed by the Oikos Community Relations Team the following: - “Whilst writing, we would also like to take the opportunity to provide you with an update on the preparation timeframe for the OMSSD project. In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is clearly no longer possible for the project to proceed along the timeframe we originally programmed. This means that the statutory consultation period, which we originally envisaged taking place in early summer 2020, will not be going ahead as planned at that time” Being unaware that the Scoping Opinion process including statutory responses had been undertaken with the deadline being 7th May 2020. I am strongly of the opinion that whole process has subsequently been undermined in terms of the local community’s participation in the procedure. May I respectfully therefore request dispensation to express the following. The lack of opportunity for public consultation at this stage, has prompted this response to provide background information and overview of the Inspectorates Scoping Opinion and consultation responses. The primary objective being to ensure that public safety and well-being is foremost in all aspects of the (OMSSD) project. Oikos Site Storage History The proposed increase storage of hazardous materials represents a huge increase, in real terms, when consideration is given to the fact that a significant proportion of the Oikos storage site facility was operating under the Environment Agency “Pollution Prevention and Control Regulation 2000”, Permit Number VP3838LP issued 30/10/2007. Whereby a permitted grant for 237,750 tonnes annual throughput of a variety of waste raw material and fuel of a less volatile nature was processed. The point being made here is that the original tank capacity for the storage of highly hazardous materials was not being maintained for some considerable time at this facility. The argument that the recent application for renewal of licence ( Hazardous Substance Consent Ref CPT/3811/HAZ) to store at this site, represented reduction in previous storage capacities of highly volatile materials was not only questionable, it highlights that the real objective, as this application indicates, has been the further substantial increased storage capacity. In the understanding that the considerable increase in storage of hazardous materials does not necessarily equate to the increase in risk, the “Residual Risk” consequences imposed on the same community is however considerable. The consequential and totality of increased activity, human or otherwise, when handling the storage and distribution hazard material in this area of Canvey Island has increased the likelihood of an adverse event and thereby heightened the level of Societal Risk. The Applicants Scoping report at: - “2.18 Calor LPG Terminal - The Calor LPG terminal, located to the east of the Oikos Facility and the HBC site, is owned and operated by Calor Gas Ltd and adjoins the south-east corner of the Oikos Facility (as shown on Figure 2.2). The Calor terminal contains LPG storage tanks and benefits from a jetty that extends out into the River Thames. 2.19 Beyond the Calor LPG terminal and further to the east lies an existing waste-water treatment works, the Concord Rangers Football Club and Thorney Bay Caravan Park, which contains static caravans and mobile homes for both holiday use and permanent residential occupation” The significance of the “Calor Gas” site and the “Thorney Bay Caravan Park” in terms of Societal Risk needs to be fully explored. For reasons best known to themselves, the Calor Gas Company Ltd have seemingly failed to contribute towards this consultation process, however, they are the Domino site to the Oikos installation. The significant storage and transportation of LPG, to and from this Major Hazardous terminal, requires a stringent risk reduction safety regime. The Thorney Bay Caravan Park exists under licence issues by Castle Point Borough Council. The applicants scoping report at page 245 refers to planning applications 14/0620/FUL and CPT/707/11/OUT for consideration. What is clear however is that the “Thorney Bay” site owner has favoured the very popular concept of the now “Sandy Bay” Luxury Park Home Residential Development exclusively for an over 50s occupation covering the whole site. (www.sandybay.co.uk) A site visit would be conclusive. Astonishingly, neither Castle Point Borough Council, the Canvey Island Town Council or Essex County Council have discussed this issue in their response. Also see from scoping report “HSE Consultation Diagram” on page 239 which identifies how intrinsically linked the Oikos and Calor Gas sites are in terms of hazard zoning. The Development of a Park Homes Complex should have caused a review of the Local Authorities Licensing Process to reflect on the requirement of NPPF.45 “45. Local planning authorities should consult the appropriate bodies when considering applications for the siting of, or changes to, major hazard sites, installations, or pipelines, or for development around them”. Environment Agency Competent Authority The Environment Agency submission to the Planning Inspectorate Scoping Opinion Report refers to COMAH Site “Safety Reports”. “Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations “COMAH Regulation (Notifications and Safety Report) As noted in section 20 of the Scoping Report the proposal is located at a facility notified under The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 (COMAH) as an upper tier COMAH establishment. It is also adjacent to another upper tier COMAH establishment operated by Calor Gas Limited. The COMAH regulations are enforced by the Competent Authority (CA). The CA comprises the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environment Agency (EA), acting jointly. COMAH requires for operators to notify the CA ‘in advance’ of certain changes including ‘a significant increase or decrease in the quantity of dangerous substances’ and ‘any modification of the establishment or an installation which could have significant consequences in terms of major accident hazards’. Upper Tier establishments are also required to submit revised Safety Reports which, amongst other aspects, must demonstrate that the major accident scenarios in relation to the establishment have been identified and that the necessary measures have been taken to prevent such accidents and to limit their consequences for human health and the environment This proposal will require a review and revision to the Safety Report before the proposed changes are made at the establishment. The operator should discuss this requirement with their COMAH Intervention Manager. Further information on COMAH is available in guidance document ‘L111 - A guide to the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015’ available on the HSE website” COMAH Site Safety Reports It is hoped that the Planning Inspector will avail him/herself of the content of the updated Oikos and current Calor Gas “Safety Reports”, particularly the section that identifies “Societal Risk” with worst case events and consequences. This will allow for a full appreciation of the types of possible incidents, the hazard range resulting from such incidents and the likely number and type of persons that could harmed. Such information will also present an opportunity to examine the logistics of suitable for purpose Off Site Emergency Planning and evacuation proposals. The submission from the HSE “Land Use Planning” Department is extremely limited as what its role covers when dealing with what they describe as the Major Accident Sites such as Oikos and Calor Gas. This consultation with regards to Land Use Planning is totally reliant on communication from Local Planning Authorities Waiver of Representation at Local Level The process of protecting the community of Canvey Island and beyond via the Hazardous Substance Consent controls has been relinquished by the Cabinet at CPBC, when agreeing to the recommendation to do so. Agenda Item 7(b) Cabinet Agenda Wednesday 19th February 2020 Recommendations 1 That the Cabinet notes the Development Consent Order process and the role of the Council. 2 To approve the inclusion within the Development Consent Order the Hazardous Substances Consent and waive the Council’s determination of such a consent only in respect to the matters identified in the Development Consent Order. 3 That a report is made to Cabinet in respect of the Council’s representation to the Development Consent Order. A point to note here is, that the decision having been taken, to waive the Councils determination of such consent, was made by CPBC Cabinet Members and not as normally the Hazardous Substance Authority ie the Planning Committee. This had the outcome of denying the community of Canvey Island of Councillor representation, due to Councillor distribution and there being no Canvey Island Councillors in the Cabinet. Flood Risk The issue of flood risk and the use of the most up to date information has been dealt with comprehensively in the Scoping Opinion comments. This is a significant issue for Canvey Island in terms of property damage and risk to life, with the Stay Put Emergency Plan seemingly completely in appropriate in some cases. What has not been discussed however is the activity of water take-up space erosion caused by development and the considerable land raising incidents, particularly in the area immediately around the Okios and neighbouring Calor Gas establishments. This unabated activity has had a direct impact on flood water depth and velocities, to the effect that any previous flood issue modelling such as LiDAR is now completely nullified. The likelihood of flooding of the access routes to and from Canvey Island will increase following sea level rise. Access to Canvey Island is currently only possible by two roads (A130 and B1006), both of which are connected at the same roundabout. Any disruption to these routes would hamper evacuation and severely limit access to the industrial areas on Canvey Island, including potential disruption to the gas and oil storage installations. This could have significant implications for the national economy since Canvey Island is already functioning as one of the main oil and gas distribution centres for the UK, which question the logistics of these sites having any long-term sustainability. Aspirational TE2100 Plan The Environment Agency’s submission clearly identifies that: - “The TE2100 Plan is an aspirational document, rather than a definitive policy, so whether the defences are raised in the future will be dependent on cost benefit analysis as well as eligibility and availability of central government Grant in Aid to deliver the required works”. This indicates that recommendation from the TE2100 plan should not be relied upon as the evidence basis in support of a long-term sustainability. Critical Drainage. There has been no acknowledgement from the relevant authorities that the whole of Canvey Island is a “Critical Drainage” area, and despite CPBCs best efforts to gain significant government funding following the severe surface water flooding incidents in 2013 and 2014 to resolve such issues, no such funding has materialised. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan. The following comment from the Essex County Council Lead Local Flood Authority submission implies that they consider the flood risk modelling and surveys to be up to date and suitable for purpose, which clearly is not the case. “The information supplied for flood risk and surface water management is considered sufficient, and there is not a need for additional information to be supplied as part of the ES”. This would indicate that there is a lack of communication between CPBC and the LLFA as to the activities undertaken on Canvey Island that would have a direct impact on the “Surface Water Management Plan” and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, both of which need review. Thank you for giving these observations your consideration, they are intended to be constructive and hopefully of value in the examination process. Yours sincerely John Webb.
Dear Mr Webb Thank you for your email. At present the Oikos Applicant has undertaken their scoping activities; In accordance with Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations 2017, the Applicant is required during Pre-Application to seek an opinion from PINS on the content of their Environmental Statement (a document relating to the environmental impact of the proposed development forming part of their application for development consent). Before providing the Applicant with their opinion, PINS must consult with all parties listed in column 1 of the table as set out in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Please also see Advice Note 3: EIA Notification and Consultation for further information, which I have attached to this email. The applicant’s consultation with the local communities and general public has not yet taken place. Due to the current Covid-19 situation the applicant’s public consultation activities, which they are statutorily obligated to undertake as part of the Pre-Application stage of the development consent process, have been delayed as per their communication to you. Once they are able to resume these, you will be able to view and provide a response to their proposals. We are currently not aware of when these will take place. If the Oikos Development application is submitted and accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party to the project and submit your views, which will form part of the Examining Authority’s subsequent Examination. We advise that you view our webpage for this project, where you can sign up for updates via email as the project progresses - the email updates option is on the right hand side of the page. For further information I have also attached our Advice Note 8.1 which provides information on responding to the developer’s Pre-Application consultation, and Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination. Our full suite of Advice Notes can be accessed from our website. I hope this email has been of assistance, please contact us if you have any further queries.

25 June 2020
John Webb
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see Attached
Please see Attached

21 June 2019
Oikos South Side Development (OSSD) - anon.